Cited Laws
Accordingly, it is an indisputable fact that there is a substantial distinction between sea-based OFWs and land-based OFWs as enunciated in the cited case of Conference of Maritime Manning Agencies, Inc. Thus, these two [] classifications of OFWs can be treated differently. [148] (Emphasis supplied, citations omitted) Further, the petitioners in Joint Ship Manning Group, Inc. also argued that the different classification of manning agencies of seafarers, as solidarily liable with the principal foreign ship owners for SSS contributions, is unfair. They pointed out that the DFA and DOLE are only mandated to secure bilateral labor agreements with land-based OFWs, but not for sea-based OFWs, which violates the equal protection clause. The Court rejected the argument and explained that: Thus, the solidary liability of manning agencies with respect to principal foreign ship owners has been established by law, particularly, [Republic Act] No. 8042, as amended, and duly implemented by the 2016 POEA Rules. Sec. 9-B (b) of [Republic Act] No. 11199, which treats manning agencies as employers for the sole purpose of recognizing their joint and solidary liability in favor of seafarers, simply acknowledged the existing law and regulations. This provision was not created by Congress out of thin air; instead, it was based on the cited law and regulations, which manning agencies already acceded to. Due to this existing and recognized solidary liability of manning agencies, it was reasonable for the law to no longer mandate the DFA and DOLE to secure bilateral labor agreements because the SSS coverage of the seafarers are already safeguarded. [149] Thus, the liability of manning agencies with respect to the contribution of SSS premiums of sea-based OFWs under Section 9-B of Republic Act No. 11199, is founded on legal and contractual obligations. In contrast, there is no singular or uniform employment contract applicable to land-based OFWs, which would justify imposing the same solidary liability to pay SSS contributions on their recruitment agencies. Thus, the Court finds that the classification in Section 9-B of Republic Act No. 11199 is grounded on substantial distinctions and rationally furthers a legitimate State interest. Importantly, this classification is also germane to the purpose of the law. Similarly, the assailed provisions do not apply only to existing conditions. All land-based OFWs are completely covered by the SSS, without any conditions. Hence, the third and fourth requisitesthat the classification must not be limited to existing conditions only and that it must apply equally to all members of the same classare complied with. There is therefore no violation of the equal protection clause. Invalid Exercise of Police Power The petitioners argue that the mechanism by which the compulsory SSS contributions are collected from the land-based OFWs under Rule 14, Section 7(iii) of the IRR of Republic Act No. 11199 constitutes an unjust deprivation of pr