6/7/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly Commission, when confirmed by the Court of Appeals, are usually "conclusive on this Court."[119] In this case, we do not see any reason to deviate from the general rule. Madridejos insists that he could not be on probationary status because he was merely "re-engaged" as evinced by his Overseas Filipino Worker Information.[120] However, " [t]he employment of seafarers and its incidents are governed by the contracts they sign every time they are hired or re-hired. These contracts have the force of law between the parties as long as their stipulations are not contrary to law, morals, public order or public policy."[121] Given that he submitted himself with the terms of his contract, NYK-FIL may validly terminate his services pursuant to their agreed terms. Moreover, Madridejos cannot feign ignorance[122] about his termination letter,[123] which shows his acquiescence through his signature. Also in his Reply[124] to NYK-FIL's Position Paper before the National Labor Relations Commission, he explicitly recognized the termination of his contract stating: [I]n fact, several days prior to the termination of his contract, complainant was involved in an accident while lifting and carrying kitchen equipment aboard the vessel, he accidentally slipped in a metal stairway. [125] (Emphasis supplied) Similarly, a perusal of the records shows that he contested neither the existence of the termination letter nor the authenticity of his signature on it.[126] II Madridejos asserts that after the excision of his cyst, he was advised to be repatriated back to the Philippines for further treatment and evaluation, citing the letter of Dr. Byrne. However, there is nothing in the discharge letter to show that Dr. Byrne explicitly advised Madridejos to go back to the Philippines for further treatment. On the contrary, the letter even confirmed that the excision was merely a minor operation done under a local anesthesia. Hence, the lesion only required three (3) stitches for which Madridejos was immediately discharged back to the vessel after.[127] This bolsters NYK-FIL's claim that Madridejos was not medically repatriated. Further, the records[128] were bereft of any sign that Madridejos was having issues following his operation, indicating that everything was well after the procedure.[129] As insisted by NYK-FIL, Madridejos was able to regularly work for the next two (2) months after the excision.[130] Madridejos' passport also shows that he arrived in the Philippines on July 6, 2010[131] or almost three (3) months after his operation on April 29, 2010.[132] As asserted by elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/63066 10/25