G. R. No. 179177 22 of 29 http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/july2009/179177.htm However, Sec. 2(A) of the POEA-SEC also provides that the POEA-SEC shall be effective until the seafarers date of arrival at the point of hire upon termination of the employment contract, pursuant to Sec. 18 of the same contract. Sec. 18 states SECTION 18. TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT A. The employment of the seafarer shall cease when the seafarer completes his period of contractual service aboard the vessel, signs-off from the vessel and arrives at the point of hire. Record of the present case reveals that petitioner Nisda signed off and disembarked from M/V Algosaibi-42, and was repatriated to the Philippines, only on 17 July 2002. Hence, it was only on said date that petitioner Nisdas POEA-SEC actually concluded. We cannot subscribe to the assertion of respondents Sea Serve and ADAMS that from 21 May 2002 until his repatriation on 17 July 2002, petitioner Nisda was already toiling under the provisions of the second employment contract he signed with respondent ADAMS without the endorsement of the POEA. [78] In Placewell International Services Corporation v. Camote, we held that the subsequently executed side agreement of an overseas contract worker with the foreign employer is void, simply because it is against our existing laws, morals and public policy. The subsequent agreement cannot supersede the terms of the standard employment contract approved by the POEA. Republic Act No. 8042, commonly known as the Migrant Workers Act of 1995, expressly 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 the actual signing thereof by the parties up to and including the period of the expiration of the same, without the approval of [79] DOLE. Since the second employment contract petitioner Nisda signed with respondent ADAMS was void for not having been sanctioned by the POEA, then petitioner Nisdas employment with respondent ADAMS was still governed by his POEA-SEC until his repatriation to the Philippines on 17 July 2002. That petitioner Nisda was diagnosed with heart disease only on 19 July 2002, already two days after his return to the Philippines, is of no adverse significance to his claim. Sec. 20(B)(3) of the 2000 POEA Amended Standard Terms and Conditions requires 1/28/2016 1:07 PM