As a rule, stipulations in an employment contract not contrary to statutes, public policy, public order or morals have the force of law between the contracting parties.[13] An employment with a period is generally valid, unless the term was purposely intended to circumvent the employees right to his security of tenure.[14] Absent a covering specific agreement and unless otherwise provided by law, the terms and conditions of employment of all employees in the private sector shall be governed by the Labor Code[15] and such rules and regulations as may be issued by the Department of Labor and Employment and such agencies charged with the administration and enforcement of the Code. The differing conclusions arrived at by the NLRC, finding for the herein petitioner, and the Court of Appeals, siding in part with the herein respondent, on Delos Santos entitlement to disability benefits and sickness allowance are veritably attributable to the question of applicability, under the premises, of the POEA-SEC. The principal issue to be resolved here, therefore, boils down to: which, between the POEA-SEC and the Labor Code, governs the employer-employee relationship between Delos Santos and respondent after MV Wild Iris, as later renamed Super RoRo 100,returned to the country from its one-month conduction voyage to and from Japan. The Court of Appeals ruled against the governing applicability of the POEA-SEC and, on that basis, deleted the NLRCs award of US$60,000.00 and US$2,452.00 by way of disability benefits and sickness allowance, respectively. An excerpt of the appellate courts explanation: xxx Both parties do not dispute the existence of the POEA approved contract signed by the parties. The said contract is the law between the contracting parties and absent any showing that its provisions are wholly or in part contrary to law, morals, good policy, it shall be enforced to the letter by the contracting parties (Metropolitan Bank and Trust Co. vs. Wong, G.R. No. 120859, June 26, 2001). The contract in question is for a duration of one (1) month. Being a valid contract between Delos Santos and the [respondent], the provisions thereof, specifically with respect to the one (1) month period of employment has the force of law between them (D.M. Consunji vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 116572, December 18, 2000). Perforce, the said contract has already expired and is no longer in effect. The fact that Delos Santos continued to work in the same vessel which sailed within Philippine waters does not mean that the POEA standard employment contract continues to be enforced between the parties. The