5/28/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly xxx [Emphases supplied] It is to be observed that both provisions require the seafarer to arrive at the point of hire as it signifies the completion of the employment contract, and not merely its expiration. Similarly, a seafarer’s employment contract is terminated even before the contract expires as soon as he arrives at the point of hire and signs off for medical reasons, due to shipwreck, voluntary resignation or for other just causes. In a nutshell, there are three (3) requirements necessary for the complete termination of the employment contract: 1] termination due to expiration or other reasons/causes; 2] signing off from the vessel; and 3] arrival at the point of hire. In this case, there was no clear showing that Caseñas signed off from the vessel upon the expiration of his employment contract, which was in February or April 2005. He did not arrive either in Manila, his point of hire, because he was still on board the vessel MV Haitien Pride on the supposed date of expiration of his contract. It was only on August 14, 2006 that he signed off[21] from MV Haitien Pride and arrived in Manila on August 30, 2006. In Interorient Maritime Enterprises, Inc. v. NLRC,[22] the Court held that the obligations and liabilities of the local agency and its foreign principal do not end upon the expiration of the contracted period as they were duty bound to repatriate the seaman to the point of hire to effectively terminate the contract of employment.[23] APQ avers that Caseñas transferred from MV Perseverance to MV Haitien Pride, which was not the ship specifically mentioned in his contract. Section 15 of the POEA-SEC guides the Court on this. It reads: Section 15. Transfer Clause – The seafarer agrees to be transferred at any port to any vessel owned or operated, manned or managed by the same employer, provided it is accredited to the same manning agent and provided further that the position of the seafarer and the rate of his wages and terms of services are in no way inferior and the total period of employment shall not exceed that originally agreed upon. Any form of transfer shall be documented and made available when necessary. APQ did not argue that MV Haitien Pride was not operated or managed by Crew Management. It did not claim either that said vessel was not accredited by it. The logical conclusion, therefore, is that MV Haitien Pride was operated/managed by Crew Management and accredited by APQ. Thus, Caseñas’ transfer should have been documented and made part of its records for future purposes, but no documentation elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/56987 7/14