6/9/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly In this respect, the Court of Appeals applied Article 279 of the Labor Code[8] using principles of statutory construction to supplement the omission in R.A. No. 8042 regarding the unlimited period of employment. It ratiocinated that the Labor Code and R.A. No. 8042 are statutes in pari materia. The issue, therefore, is whether the Court of Appeals properly used as basis Article 279 of the Labor Code in its award for backwages to Adelantar. As early as the case of Coyoca v. NLRC,[9] we held that Filipino seamen are governed by the Rules and Regulations of the POEA. The Standard Employment Contract governing the Employment of All Filipino Seamen on Board Ocean-Going Vessels of the POEA, particularly in Part I, Sec. C specifically provides that the contract of seamen shall be for a fixed period. In no case should the contract of seamen be longer than 12 months. It reads: Section C. Duration of Contract. The period of employment shall be for a fixed period but in no case to exceed 12 months and shall be stated in the Crew contract. Any extension of the Contract period shall be subject to the mutual consent of the parties. Under the circumstances, the Court of Appeals erred in resolving the issue of backwages based on the first contract which provided for an unlimited period of employment as this violated the explicit provision of the Rules and Regulations of the POEA. While we recognize that Adelantar executed a contract with Dubai Ports Authority of Ali Jebel and might even have applied said contract in his overseas station, this contract was not sanctioned by the POEA. We agree with the NLRC when it observed thus: It should be stressed that whatever status of employment or increased benefits that the complainant may have gained while under the employ of Dubai Ports Authority, the undisputed fact remains that prior to his deployment, he agreed to be hired under a 12-month POEA contract, the duration of which is the basis for the determination of the extent of the respondent’s liability.[10] The Court of Appeals erred when it adjudged the first contract as the basis for Pentagon’s liability instead of the second contract, which is in conformity with the POEA’s Standard Employment Contract. As such, there would have been no need to resort to statutory construction where the rules and jurisprudence are clear. Besides, in Millares v. NLRC,[11] we held that: . . . [I]t is clear that seafarers are considered contractual employees. They can not be considered as regular employees under Article 280 of the Labor Code. Their employment is governed by the contracts they sign every time they are rehired and their employment is terminated when the contract expires. Their employment is contractually fixed for a certain period of time. They fall under the exception of Article 280 whose employment has elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/45733 4/6