compensation already comprised their basic salary, night shift differential, overtime pay, holiday pay and 13th month pay. Petitioners did not appeal this ruling. In this light, respondent NLRC correctly held: "With Section 1, Rule V, Book VII of the POEA Rules dated May 31, 1991 (issued pursuant to E.O. 247) providing that `(D)ecisions and/or awards of the Administration shall be final and executory unless appealed to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) by any or both parties,' it then follows that to the extent that the POEA has concluded that there is 'no case of underpayment at bar,' the same has to be bindingly observed by us vis-a-vis complainants' submitted issue in their draft decision of "(2) whether or not there had been underpayments as claimed by appellants under the provisions of P.D. 442."vii[7] The fourth issue deserves scant consideration. The matter of ordering the NLRC to compel the POEA to set up standard employment contract and guiding rates for oilrig workers is beyond the jurisdiction of this Court. With respect to the fifth issue, we find petitioners' charge that private respondents failed to provide them with life and personal accident insurance groundless. The POEA and the NLRC have found that private respondents insured petitioners with Blue Cross (Asia-Pacific) Insurance, Ltd. under two policies which even provide for coverage superior to that mandated by the rules. Before this Court, however, petitioners assail these insurance policies as they were allegedly issued by a foreign insurance company not licensed to do business in the Philippines. The contention is raised for the first time and cannot be considered.viii[8] In regard to the sixth issue, the evidence shows that petitioners are land-based workers and hence, not entitled to benefits appertaining to sea-based workers. Petitioners have nothing to do with manning vessels or with sea navigation. Their use of a seaman's book does not detract from the fact that they are truly land-based employees. Petitioners' plea that we suspend SOS' license for making them use two (2) passports is off-line. Again, they never prayed for this relief before the POEA and the NLRC. This Court is the improper venue for the belated plea. Finally, the claims for attorney's fees and damages of the petitioners have no basis as private respondents did not act in bad faith or with malice. IN VIEW WHEREOF, the decision of the NLRC dated November 27, 1995 is AFFIRMED. No costs. SO ORDERED. Melo, (Acting Chairman), and Mendoza, JJ., concur. Martinez, J., on leave.