4/10/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly portion declaring: WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered dismissing herein action for lack of merit. Respondents' claim for reimbursement of the expenses they incurred in the repatriation of complainant Nathaniel Doza is likewise dismissed. SO ORDERED.[35] The Labor Arbiter dismissed De Gracia, et al.'s complaint for illegal dismissal because the seafarers voluntarily pre-terminated their employment contracts by demanding for immediate repatriation due to dissatisfaction with the ship.[36] The Labor Arbiter held that such voluntary pre-termination of employment contract is akin to resignation,[37] a form of termination by employee of his employment contract under Article 285 of the Labor Code. The Labor Arbiter gave weight and credibility to the telex of the master of the vessel to Skippers, claiming that De Gracia, et al. demanded for immediate repatriation.[38] Due to the absence of illegal dismissal, De Gracia, et. al.'s claim for salaries representing the unexpired portion of their employment contracts was dismissed.[39] The Labor Arbiter also dismissed De Gracia et al.'s claim for home allotment for December 1998.[40] The Labor Arbiter explained that payment for home allotment is "in the nature of extraordinary money where the burden of proof is shifted to the worker who must prove he is entitled to such monetary benefit."[41] Since De Gracia, et al. were not able to prove their entitlement to home allotment, such claim was dismissed.[42] Lastly, Skippers' claim for reimbursement of repatriation expenses was likewise denied, since Article 19(G) of POEA Memorandum Circular No. 55, Series of 1996 allows the employer, in case the seafarer voluntarily pre-terminates his contract, to assume the repatriation cost of the seafarer on compassionate grounds.[43] The Decision of the NLRC The NLRC, on 28 October 2002, dismissed De Gracia, et al.'s appeal for lack of merit and affirmed the Labor Arbiter's decision.[44] The NLRC considered De Gracia, et al.'s claim for home allotment for December 1998 unsubstantiated, since home allotment is a benefit which De Gracia, et al. must prove their entitlement to.[45] The NLRC also denied the claim for illegal dismissal because De Gracia, et al. were not able to refute the telex received by Skippers from the vessel's master that De Gracia, et al. voluntarily pre-terminated their contracts and demanded immediate repatriation due to their dissatisfaction with the ship's operations.[46] The Decision of the Court of Appeals elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/21678 4/14