4/6/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly objectives, the following shall be considered minimum requirements for contracts of employment of land-based workers: xxx xxx xxx b. Free transportation to and from the worksite, or offsetting benefit; c. Free food and accommodation, or offsetting benefit; xxx xxx x x x" Following therefor, the explicit provisions of the employment contracts of private respondents, the same cannot be altered or modified by the Addendum without the prior approval of the POEA. Indeed, while the parties may stipulate on other terms and conditions of employment as well as other benefits, the stipulations should not violate the minimum requirements required by law as these would be disadvantageous to the employee. Section 3, Rule 1, Part V of the POEA Rules and Regulations Governing the Recruitment and Employment of Land-based Overseas workers is pertinent, to wit: "Section 3. Freedom to Stipulate. Parties to overseas employment contracts are allowed to stipulate other terms and conditions and other benefits not provided under these minimum requirements; provided the whole employment package should be more beneficial to the worker than the minimum; provided that the same shall not be contrary to law, public policy and morals, and provided further, that Philippine agencies shall make foreign employers aware of the standards of employment adopted by the Administration." Moreover, Section 15 of R.A. No. 8042, otherwise known as the Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995 categorically provides that the repatriation of the worker is the primary responsibility of the agency that recruited and deployed him, unless the repatriation is due to the fault of the worker. We find that both Beltran and Baybayan's repatriation were due to illegal dismissal and expiration of employment contract, respectively, as will be discussed hereunder.[39] (Citations and emphasis omitted.). A careful and assiduous review of the record of the case would yield to no other conclusion than that the Addendum is contrary to law and public policy considering that the minimum provisions for employment of respondents were not met, and that there was diminution of their benefits which were already guaranteed by law and granted in their favor under their POEA-approved contracts of employment. The Addendum, absent the approval of the POEA, is not valid and executory as against respondents. The clear and categorical language of the law likewise imposes upon foreign principals minimum terms and conditions of employment for land-based https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/66097 7/12