5/28/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly agreement for the extension was made, the acts of APQ and Crew Management proved that there was implied consent to the extension. APQ attempts to impress upon the Court that Caseñas’ contract already expired and that he had a new employer during the alleged extension of the contract by relying on the December 16, 2005 Letter of the POEA. APQ alleged in its Memorandum[26] that: In a letter dated 16 December 2005 letter, the POEA confirmed that the Contract expired on April 2005 but he was not allowed repatriation by the owner of the Vessel, his new employer [See Annex “6” of Comment attached as Annex “z” of this Petition.] A perusal of the said letter, however, discloses that nowhere was it stated that Caseñas was allowed repatriation by the owner of the vessel, his new employer. What was clearly stated therein was that Caseñas was not allowed repatriation by his employer for some reason. Insofar as Philippine law is concerned, the employer referred to in the said letter remains to be the foreign principal/manning agency as stated in the POEA-approved employment contract. Finally, there was no showing as to why Caseñas was not repatriated to the Philippines upon the expiration of his contract. It was expressly provided therein that the contract was for eight (8) months, plus or minus two (2) months, that is, until February 2005 or at most, April 2005. On its claim of lack of consent, APQ insists that as proof of its intention not to extend Caseñas’ contract, it already arranged his plane ticket as early as January & February 2005, in anticipation of the expiration of the contract, attaching the e-mail copy of the American Airlines E-ticket & Itinerary. Again, a scrutiny of the records reveals otherwise. The e-mail and e-ticket consistently relied upon by the petitioners clearly showed that the e-ticket was issued on January 18, 2006, which flight was scheduled on January 23 (Monday) bound for Miami and January 25 (Wednesday) bound for Manila. There were two (2) other e-tickets arranged for Caseñas which showed a flight schedule on February 8 (Wednesday) and February 15 (Wednesday), both bound for Manila from Miami. These e-mails and e-tickets were sent by Crew Management to APQ via fax. Crew Management also executed the letter, [27] dated February 24, 2006, addressed to DOLE-OWWA in response to the report of the wife of Caseñas to DOLE regarding his repatriation. Crew Management stated in said letter, copy furnished APQ, that it had already issued an air ticket to Caseñas, but he failed to claim it. The same letter assured the DOLE-OWWA of its arranging the payment of wages and repatriation of the crew members on-board MV Haitien Pride, as well as its arranging another plane ticket for Caseñas, if necessary. Thus, these communications reveal that APQ had actual knowledge that Caseñas continued working on board the said vessel after February/April 2005. Despite such knowledge, APQ neither posed any objection to the extension of the contract nor make any effort to protect itself from any responsibility that might arise from the extension, if it did not indeed intend to extend the employment contract. To keep on elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/56987 9/14