STOLT-NIELSEN MARINE SERVICES (PHILS.), INC. and STOLT... http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/nov1996/105396.htm that he be afforded a formal investigation where he could defend himself personally or through a representative. Fear of any possible trouble that might be caused by the dismissed employee on board the vessel upon being informed of his dismissal is not a reason to dispense with the requirement. [22] We agree with petitioners, however, that respondent is not entitled to the overtime pay awarded to him by the POEA. The ruling in National Shipyards and Steel Corporation vs. CIR [23] is in point, and there the Court, through Justice J.B.L. Reyes, has said: and Malondras We can not agree with the Court below that respondent Malondras should be paid overtime compensation for every hour in excess of the regular working hours that he was on board his vessel or barge each day, irrespective of whether or not he actually put in work during those hours. Seamen are required to stay on board their vessels by the very nature of their duties, and it is for this reason that, in addition to their regular compensation, they are given free living quarters and subsistence allowances when required to be on board. It could not have been the purpose of our law to require their employers to pay them overtime even when they are not actually working: otherwise sailor on board a vessel would be entitled to overtime for sixteen hours each day, even if he had spent all those hours resting or sleeping in his bunk, after his regular tour of duty. The correct criterion in determining whether or not sailors or not sailors are entitled to overtime pay is not, therefore, whether they were on board and can not leave ship beyond the regular eight working hours a day, but whether they actually rendered service in excess of said number of hours. [24] Anent the matter on jurisdiction, the issue was mooted by petitioners active participation in [25] the proceedings below. In Marquez vs. Secretary of Labor, the Court said: x x x. The active participation of the party against whom the action was brought, coupled with his failure to object to the jurisdiction of the court or quasi-judicial body where the action is pending, is tantamount to an invocation of that jurisdiction and a willingness to abide by the resolution of the case and will bar said party from later on impugning the court or bodys jurisdiction. [26] WHEREFORE, the herein questioned resolutions of the NLRC are AFFIRMED subject to the modification that the award of overtime pay in the amount of Two Thousand Two Hundred Fifty U.S. dollars (US$2,250.00) is deleted. No costs. SO ORDERED. Padilla, Bellosillo, Kapunan, and Hermosisima, Jr., JJ., concur. [1] Both penned by Commissioner Domingo H. Zapanta and concerred in by Presiding Commissioner Edna Bonto-Perez and Commissioner Rustico L. Diokno. [2] Penned by Deputy Administrator and Officer-in-Charge Manuel G. Imson. [3] A collective agreement entered into by the company and the seamen increased private respondents benefits as follows: basic monthly pay of US$624.00; fixed overtime pay of US$250.00; vacation leave pay of US$125.00 a month; longevity pay of US$60.00 per month, and other related benefits (Rollo, p. 233). [4] Ibid., p. 93. [5] Ibid., pp. 38-39. [6] Ibid., p. 121. [7] Ibid., p. 12. [8] Ibid., p. 18. 5 of 6 1/20/2016 2:19 PM