vessel or barge each day, irrespective of whether or not he actually put in work during those hours. Seamen are required to stay on board their vessels by the very nature of their duties, and it is for this reason that, in addition to their regular compensation, they are given free living quarters and subsistence allowances when required to be on board. It could not have been the purpose of our law to require their employers to pay them overtime even when they are not actually working; otherwise, every sailor on board a vessel would be entitled to overtime for sixteen hours each a day, even if he spent all those hours resting or sleeping in his bunk, after his regular tour of duty. The correct criterion in determining whether or not sailors are entitled to overtime pay is not, therefore, whether they were on board and can not leave ship beyond the regular eight working hours a day, but whether they actually rendered service in excess of said number of hours. (Italics supplied) In the same vein, the claim for the days leave pay for the unexpired portion of the contract is unwarranted since the same is given during the actual service of the seamen.xii[12] The claim for moral and exemplary damages are deleted for lack of sufficient basis. Considering that petitioner was forced to litigate, we hold that the amount of P10,000.00 is a reasonable and fair compensation for the legal services rendered by counsel. WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The decision of the NLRC is SET ASIDE. Private respondent is hereby ORDERED to pay only the petitioner his salary equivalent to seven (7) months corresponding to the unexpired portion of the contract plus attorneys fees of P10,000.00. SO ORDERED. Davide, Jr., C.J., (Chairman), Puno, Pardo, and Ynares-Santiago, JJ., concur. i[1] Molato v. NLRC, 266 SCRA 42 (1997); Mirano v. NLRC, 270 SCRA 96 (1997). ii[2] Waterous Drug Corp. v. NLRC, 280 SCRA 735 (1997). iii[3] NATH v. NLRC, 274 SCRA 379 (1997). iv[4] MGG Marine Services, Inc. v. NLRC, 259 SCRA 664 (1996). v[5] Annex 3, Rollo, p. 133. vi[6] Rollo, p. 26. vii[7] Gold City Integrated Port Services, Inc. v. NLRC, 189 SCRA 811 (1990).