AMELIA J. DELOS SANTOS vs. JEBSEN MARITIME INC.

G.R. No. 154185, November 22, 2005

Garcia, J.

Facts of the Case

 On August 10, 1995, Respondent Jebsen Maritime, for and in behalf of Aboitiz Shipping Co., hired
petitioner’s husband, Gil R. Delos Santos as third engineer of MV Wild Iris for a fixed period of 1 month and
for a specific undertaking of conducting said vessel to and from Japan, as stated in their contract of
employment approved by the POEA. It also quoted his 1-month salary and other monetary benefits in US
currency.
 After a month, the vessel returned to the Philippines and Delos Santos remained on board and opted to retain
his services while the vessel underwent repair in Cebu.
 MV Wild Iris was renamed and registered as MV Super Roro 100 and was granted a permit to sail within
domestic waters and engage in coast-wise trade.
 During this period, Delos Santos was receiving his salary in Philippine Peso thru a payroll-deposit
arrangement with the Philippine Commercial & Industrial Bank.
 5 moths after, Delos Santos experienced episodes of chest pain, numbness, and body weakness which
eventually left him temporarily paralyzed.
 He then underwent 2 spinal column operation. The first operation was shouldered by the respondent, including
his post operation confinement. Delos Santos shouldered his second operation, including his therapy sessions
and post confinement expenses.
 Petitioner then demanded reimbursement from the respondent, which the latter rejected saying that all of
Delos Santos’ sickness benefits under the SSS Law had already been paid.
 On January 25, 1997, petitioner filed a complaint with the Arbitration Branch of NLRC against the respondent
for the recovery of disability benefits, and sick wage allowance and reimbursement of the hospital and
medical expenses.
LA Ruling
 On January 8, 1999, the Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of the petitioner and ordered the respondent and ASC to
jointly and severally pay the disability benefits, and sick wage allowance and reimbursement of the hospital
and medical expenses of Delos Santos, including moral damages and attorney’s fees.
NLRC Ruling
 On appeal, NLRC modified the decision of LA (ordered the payment in Philippine peso)
 NLRC predicated its ruling on the theory that POEA approved contract of employment continued to govern
Delos Santos’ employment when he contracted his illness, thus entitling him to the payment of disability and
like benefits provided and required by POEA-SEC.
 Respondent’s motion for reconsideration was denied.
CA Ruling
 Respondent then filed with the CA petition for certiorari for grave abuse of discretion when it extended the
application of the expired POEA approved employment contract beyond the 1 month limit stipulated therein.
 CA ruled against the POEA-SEC and, deleted NLRC’s award of disability compensation benefits, sickness
wages, and attorney’s fees.
Factual Issue: WON there is a mutual agreement on the extension of the expired contract.
 Petitioner contends that prior to his accident, the employment contract of Delos Santos has not yet been
terminated in relation to POEA SEC and that it was mutually extended by the parties when Delos Santos was
not signed off and repatriated prior to the accident.
 She also contends that Delos Santos did not conclude another contact of employment with the respondent, but
was asked to remain and work on board the same vessel and that if the parties intend their EER to be under a
new contract, such intention should have been embodied in anew agreement.
 CA pointed out that Delos Santos’ services were in fact retained by the respondent, but under domestic terms
and conditions. In addition, Delos Santos also received his reduced salaries in Philippine Peso without any
protest. And lastly, MV Super Roro 100 was no longer engaged in foreign trading.
 Legal Issue: WON the Labor Code, not the POEA SEC, governs the EER of Delos Santos and
respondent.
SC Ruling
 SC agreed with the conclusion of CA saying that the fact that Delos Santos continued to work in the same
vessel which sailed within Philippine waters does not mean that the POEA standard employment
contract continues to be enforced between the parties. The employment of Delos Santos is within the
Philippines, and not on a foreign shore. As correctly pointed out by [respondent], the provisions of the
Labor Code shall govern their employer-employee relationship
 As what the SC have held in the landmark case of Millares v. National Labor Relations Commission, it is
clear that seafarers are considered contractual employees. ' Their employment is governed by the
contracts they sign every time they are rehired and their employment is terminated when the contract
expires. ' Their employment is contractually fixed for a certain period of time. They fall under the
exception of Article 280 [of the Labor Code] whose employment has been fixed for a specific project or
undertaking . . . We need not depart from the rulings of the Court in the two aforementioned cases
which indeed constitute stare decisis with respect to the employment status of seafarers.
 A seaman need not physically disembarked from a vessel at the expiration of his employment contract
to have such contract considered terminated. And the repatriation aspect of the contract assumes
significance only where the vessel remains in a foreign port. For, repatriation presupposes a return to
one's country of origin or citizenship. In the case at bar, however, there can be quibbling that MV Wild
Iris returned to the port of Cebu with Delos Santos on board. Parenthetically, while the parties are
agreed that their underlying contract was executed in the country, the records do not indicate what city
or province of the Philippines is the specific point of hire. While petitioner says it is Manila, she did not
bother to attach to her petition a copy of the contract of employment in question

PETITION WAS DENIED. CA DECISION AFFIRMED.