5/20/2018 324. Petroleum Shipping Limited v. NLRC (2006)

1/5

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

Manila

THIRD DIVISION

G.R. No. 148130 June 16, 2006

PETROLEUM SHIPPING LIMITED (o!"e!#$ ESSO INTERN%TION%L SHIPPING(&%H%M%S' CO., LTD.' n) TR%NS*GLO&%L M%RITIME %GENC+, INC.,Petitioners,

vs.N%TION%L L%&OR REL%TIONS COMMISSION n) LORELLO -. T%NCHICO,Respondents.

D E C I S I O N

C%RPIO, J.:

Te C/e

efore the !ourt is a petition for revie"#assailin$ the %& 'anuar( %))# Decision%and *Ma( %))# Resolution+of the !ourt of ppeals in !-.R. SP No. &/*&0.

Te %nee)en /

On 0 March #1*2, 3sso International Shippin$ 4aha5as6 !o., 7td., 483sso86 throu$hTrans-lobal Mariti5e $enc(, Inc. 48Trans-lobal86 hired 9lorello :. Tanchico48Tanchico86 as 9irst ssistant 3n$ineer. In #12#, Tanchico beca5e !hief 3n$ineer. On#+ October #11%, Tanchico returned to the Phil ippines for a t"o-5onth vacation afterco5pletin$ his ei$ht-5onth deplo(5ent.

On 2 Dece5ber #11%, Tanchico under"ent the re;uired standard 5edical e

5/20/2018 324. Petroleum Shipping Limited v. NLRC (2006)

2/5

In its Decision pro5ul$ated on %& 'anuar( %))#, the !ourt of ppeals affir5ed in totothe %1 March #111 Resolution of the N7R!.

The !ourt of ppeals ruled that Tanchico "as a re$ular e5plo(ee of Petroleu5Shippin$. The !ourt of ppeals held that petitioners are not e

5/20/2018 324. Petroleum Shipping Limited v. NLRC (2006)

3/5

ter5ination of "hich has been deter5ined at the ti5e of en$a$e5ent of the e5plo(eeor "here the "or= or services to be perfor5ed is seasonal in nature and thee5plo(5ent is for the duration of the season. :e need not depart fro5 the rulin$s ofthe !ourt in the t"o afore5entioned cases "hich indeed constitute stare decisis withrespect to the e5plo(5ent status of seafarers.

Petitioners insist that the( should be considered re$ular e5plo(ees, since the( haverendered services "hich are usuall( necessar( and desirable to the business of theire5plo(er, and that the( have rendered 5ore than t"ent( 4%)6 (ears of service. :hilethis 5a( be true, the Brent case has, ho"ever, held that there are certain for5s ofe5plo(5ent "hich also re;uire the perfor5ance of usual and desirable functions and"hich eurisdiction and as clearl( stated in the Coyoca case, 9ilipino sea5en are$overned b( the Rules and Re$ulations of the PO3. The Standard 35plo(5ent!ontract $overnin$ the e5plo(5ent of ll 9ilipino Sea5en on oard Ocean-oin$Vessels of the PO3, particularl( in Part I, Sec. ! specificall( provides that the contract

of sea5en shall be for a fi

5/20/2018 324. Petroleum Shipping Limited v. NLRC (2006)

4/5

llo"ance, Sic=ness, In>ur( and Death, Transportation and Travel 3ur(, occupational illness, hospital and 5edical e

5/20/2018 324. Petroleum Shipping Limited v. NLRC (2006)

5/5

pa(5ents for disabilit( resultin$ fro5 his o"n 5isconduct, ne$li$ence, unla"fulacts, altercations, vice, etc.

!. fter dise5bar=ation fro5 a vessel, the S39R3R is entitled to onehundred percent 4#))C6 of his "a$es until he is declared fit or the de$ree ofper5anent disabilit( has been assessed b( the !OMPNF@s ph(sician for a5a