5/28/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly August 1, 2005 and, thus, he had no legal basis to claim any salary after the said period.[10] Caseñas became ill in August 2006 or more than one (1) year after the expiration of his employment contract.[11] Labor Arbiter Decision On November 20, 2008, the Labor Arbiter (LA) rendered the Decision[12] dismissing Caseñas' complaint. He was of the view that the employment contract was not extended pursuant to the terms and conditions of the contract. Caseñas failed to prove mutual consent of the parties to the extension of the contract. He rendered services on MV Haitien Pride from August 1, 2005 to April 30, 2006, after the expiration of his contract with APQ on board the vessel MV Perseverance on February 15, 2005. The LA pointed out that the illness/disease suffered by Caseñas was sustained while serving on board MV Cap Haitien Pride, which was outside the period of his contractual employment. Thus, Caseñas' claims could not be awarded. NLRC Resolution On June 22, 2009, the NLRC resolved the appeal by reversing and setting aside the LA decision. Based on the records, it found that the employment contract was extended. The illness, Essential Hypertension, suffered by Caseñas was a compensable disease under Section 32-A, No. 20 of the POEA-SEC. Hence, NLRC ruled that Caseñas was entitled to his claims because the illness was sustained within the duration of his employment contract. On October 14, 2009, the NLRC, acting on the motion for reconsideration filed by APQ, reconsidered and set aside the June 22, 2009 NLRC Resolution. It explained that the documentary evidence presented only proved the extension of contract but not the consent given to it by APQ. Caseñas failed to present the new contract duly signed by APQ or Crew Management, or any proof that they consented to the extension. The NLRC explained that Caseñas directly dealt with the shipowner to the exclusion of APQ and Crew Management, hence, his recourse was against the shipowner. Thus, APQ could not be held liable for the unpaid salaries, as well as the permanent disability benefits, because these were claims that accrued after the expiration of the employment contract. Caseñas moved for a reconsideration, but the NLRC denied his motion in its Resolution, dated November 27, 2009. CA Decision Caseñas filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 before the CA, assailing the October 14, 2009 decision and the November 27, 2009 resolution of the NLRC. On January 24, 2011, the CA granted the petition and nullified and set aside the questioned NLRC decision and resolution. The CA reinstated the earlier June 22, 2009 NLRC Resolution. In so ruling, the CA cited the case of Placewell International Services Corporation v. elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/56987 3/14