2.  Whether Tanchico is entitled to 13th month pay, disability benefits and attorney’s fees.   The Ruling of This Court            The petition is partly meritorious.   Seafarers are Contractual Employees            The issue on whether seafarers are regular employees is already a settled matter.          In Ravago v. Esso Eastern Marine, Ltd.,[14] the Court traced its ruling in a number of cases that seafarers are contractual, not regular, employees.  Thus, in Brent School, Inc. v. Zamora,[15] the Court cited overseas employment contract as an example of contracts where the concept of regular employment does not apply, whatever the nature of the engagement and despite the provisions of Article 280 of the Labor Code.  In Coyoca v. NLRC,[16] the Court held that the agency is liable for payment of a seaman’s medical and disability benefits in the event that the principal fails or refuses to pay the benefits or wages due the seaman although the seaman may not be a regular employee of the agency.             The Court squarely passed upon the issue in Millares v. NLRC[17] where one of the issues raised was whether seafarers are regular or contractual employees whose employment are terminated everytime their contracts of employment expire.  The Court explained:            [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 everytime 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 been fixed for a specific project or undertaking the completion or termination of which has been determined at the time of engagement of the employee or where the work or services to be performed is seasonal in nature and the employment is for the duration of the season.  We need not depart from the rulings of the Court in the two aforementioned cases which indeed constitute stare  decisis  with respect to the employment status of seafarers.