5/28/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly has been shown. Even assuming arguendo that MV Haitien Pride was not related in any way with either Crew Management or APQ, it is with more reason that the transfer should have been properly documented pursuant to the above provision because it necessitated the termination of his employment contract and his repatriation to the Philippines, pursuant to Section 26(A) of the POEA-SEC. The said provision specifically provides that: Section 26. Change of Principal. A. When there is change of principal of the vessel necessitating the termination of employment of the seafarer before the date indicated in the Contract, the seafarer shall be entitled to earned wages, repatriation at employer’s expense and one month basic pay as termination pay. B. If by mutual agreement, the seafarer continues his service on board the same vessel, such service shall be treated as a new contract. The seafarer shall be entitled to earned wages only. C. In case arrangement has been made for the seafarer to join another vessel to complete his contract, the seafarer shall be entitled to basic wage until the date joining the other vessel. Meanwhile, Caseñas claimed that his transfer was due to the fact that MV Perseverance could not leave port because of incomplete documents for its operation. This was not disputed. To the mind of the Court, having incomplete documents for the vessel’s operation renders it unseaworthy. While seaworthiness is commonly equated with the physical aspect and condition of the vessel for voyage as its ability to withstand the rigors of the sea, it must not be forgotten that a vessel should be armed with the necessary documents required by the maritime rules and regulations, both local and international. It has been written that vessel seaworthiness further extends to cover the documents required to ensure that the vessel can enter and leave ports without problems.[24] Accordingly, Caseñas’ contract should have been terminated and he should have been repatriated to the Philippines because a seafarer cannot be forced to sail with an unseaworthy vessel, pursuant to Section 24 of the POEA-SEC.[25] There was, however, no showing that his contract was terminated by reason of such transfer. It is necessary to reiterate that MV Haitien Pride appears to be manned by, and accredited with, the same principal/ agency. His joining the said vessel could only mean that it was for the purpose of completing his contract as the transfer was made well within the period of his employment contract on board MV Perseverance. APQ further claims that that there was an agreement between Caseñas and the shipowner, but there was no concrete proof adduced to show that indeed a new agreement for the extension of the contract was ever made. Granting that a new elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/56987 8/14