5/28/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly At the outset, it is to be emphasized that the Court is not a trier of facts and, thus, its jurisdiction is limited only to reviewing errors of law. The rule, however, admits of certain exceptions, one of which is where the findings of fact of the lower tribunals and the appellate court are contradictory. Such is the case here. Thus, the Court is constrained to review and resolve the factual issue in order to settle the controversy. Employment contracts of seafarers on board foreign ocean-going vessels are not ordinary contracts. They are regulated and an imprimatur by the State is necessary. While the seafarer and his employer are governed by their mutual agreement, the POEA Rules and Regulations require that the POEA-SEC be integrated in every seafarer’s contract.[15] In this case, there is no dispute that Caseñas’ employment contract was duly approved by the POEA and that it incorporated the provisions of the POEA-SEC. As earlier stated, the controversy started when Caseñas claimed sickness and disability benefits as well as unpaid wages from the petitioners upon his return to the Philippines. The petitioners, on the other hand, refused to pay, arguing that Caseñas’ sickness was contracted after his employment contract expired. Regarding the issue of extension and its corresponding consequences, two cases were cited by the parties in their pleadings. The first was Sunace International Management Services, Inc. v. NLRC[16] (Sunace) and the second was Placewell International Services Corporation v. Camote[17] (Placewell). In Sunace, the Court ruled that the theory of imputed knowledge ascribed the knowledge of the agent to the principal, not the other way around. The knowledge of the principal-foreign employer could not, therefore, be imputed to its agent. As there was no substantial proof that Sunace knew of, and consented to be bound under, the 2year employment contract extension, it could not be said to be privy thereto. As such, it and its owner were not held solidarily liable for any of the complainant’s claims arising from the 2-year employment extension.[18] In Placewell, the Court concluded that the original POEA-approved employment contract subsisted and, thus, the solidary liability of the agent with the principal continued. It ruled that: R.A. No. 8042 explicitly prohibits the substitution or alteration to the prejudice of the worker, of employment contracts already approved and verified by the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) from the time of actual signing thereof by the parties up to and including the period of the expiration of the same without the approval of the DOLE. Thus, we held in Chavez v. Bonto-Perez,[19] that the subsequently executed side agreement of an overseas contract worker with her foreign employer which reduced her salary below the amount approved by the POEA is void because it is against our existing laws, morals and public policy. The said side agreement cannot supersede her standard employment contract approved by the POEA. elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/56987 5/14