5/28/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly 726 Phil. 550 THIRD DIVISION [ G.R. No. 184318, February 12, 2014 ] ANTONIO E. UNICA, PETITIONER, VS. ANSCOR SWIRE SHIP MANAGEMENT CORPORATION, RESPONDENT. DECISION PERALTA, J.: Before this Court is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court seeking to set aside the Decision[1] and Resolution[2] of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CEB-SP No. 01417, which annulled and set aside the Decision of the National Labor Relations Commission, Fourth Division in NLRC Case No. OFW V000031-2005 (RAB Case No. VI-OFW-(M) 02-12-0083). The antecedents are as follows: Respondent Anscor Swire Ship Management Corporation is a manning agency. Since the late 1980s, petitioner was employed by respondent under various contracts. In his last contract, petitioner was deployed for a period of nine (9) months from January 29, 2000 to October 25, 2000. However, since the vessel was still at sea, petitioner was only repatriated on November 14, 2000, or twenty (20) days after the expiration of his contract of employment. Petitioner averred that since he was allowed to stay in the vessel for another twenty (20) days, there was an implied renewal of his contract of employment. Hence, when he was repatriated on November 14, 2000 without a valid cause, he was illegally dismissed. Due to the foregoing, petitioner filed a case against the respondent for illegal dismissal, payment of retirement, disability and medical benefits, separation and holiday pay. In its defense, respondent argued that petitioner was hired for a fixed period, the duration of which depends upon the mutual agreement of the parties. Petitioner’s employment was, therefore, co-terminus with the term of his contract. Hence, the claim of petitioner that he was illegally dismissed must fail, because he was repatriated due to the completion of the term of his contract. On May 31, 2004, the Labor Arbiter (LA) ruled in favor of petitioner.[3] The LA ruled that since petitioner was not repatriated at the expiration of his contract on October 25, 2000, and was allowed by respondent to continue working on board its vessel up to November 14, 2000, his contract with respondent was impliedly renewed for another nine months. The LA directed respondent to pay petitioner his salary for the unexpired portion of his impliedly renewed contract, his medical benefits and attorney's fees. Aggrieved by the decision, respondent appealed to the NLRC. On August 24, 2005, the NLRC affirmed with modification the LA's decision.[4] Like the LA, the NLRC ruled that elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/56511 1/3