4/14/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly due to the sale of the ship, respondents should have immediately paid his monetary benefits or alternatively arranged for him to join another ship to complete his contract. We give more credence to Gallego's position that he was repeatedly promised redeployment. Respondents do not even dispute Gallego's position. The foregoing clearly shows that Gallego's contract was pre-terminated without a just or valid cause for failure to notify him of the sale of the ship and to immediately pay the monetary benefits due him or to redeploy him to another vessel to finish his contract under the POEA-SEC. While Gallego is illegally dismissed from employment, We cannot uphold the LA's award of wages equivalent to 15 months from September 2000 to December 2001 and from January 2002 to December 2004. The LA treated Gallego as a regular employee awarding him backwages from the time of his illegal dismissal until the decision of the LA was rendered. We stress that Gallego is a seafarer and an overseas worker, whose contract is with a term. He is entitled to security of tenure at least for the period agreed upon in his contract.[30] Hence, the provision of Section 10 of Republic Act No. 8042, [31] as amended by Republic Act No. 10022, is applicable. The provision states that termination of overseas employment without just, valid or authorized cause shall entitle the worker to his or her salaries for the unexpired portion of his employment contract. In this case, Gallego had a one-year contract with respondents from December 1999 until December 10, 2000. He was repatriated on August 4, 2000. Therefore, Gallego still had an unexpired portion of contract of four months and six days for which he must be paid the value of US$8,182.00. As to the issue on prescription, We find that Gallego timely filed his complaint. Repatriated in August 2000, Gallego was repeatedly instructed to wait for the results of the training of the newly recruited crew members of the vessel, M/V Eastern Falcon, he previously boarded, and was likewise promised for re-deployment. Gallego patiently waited for three years or until February 2003. It cannot be said that his cause of action accrued from the time he was repatriated in August 2000 because he was thereafter promised re-deployment. Besides, We hold that Gallego was illegally dismissed. The prescriptive period to file a complaint for illegal dismissal is four years from the time the cause of action accrued.[32] An action for illegal dismissal or when one is arbitrarily and unjustly deprived of his job or means of livelihood is essentially a complaint for "injury to rights," which falls under Article 1146 of the Civil Code of the Philippines.[33] Therefore, Gallego's filing of the labor complaint on July 1, 2004 is within the four-year prescriptive period from the time the cause of action accrued in February 2003. Gallego patiently waited for three years hoping that he would be re-deployed as promised by respondens. He could have looked for other gainful employment during this period especially since he is a marine engineer and has been a seafarer since 1981. Thus, awarding Gallego P200,000.00 moral damages is proper. In the same vein, We award P200,000.00 exemplary damages to serve as a deterrent to future and subsequent parties from the commission of a similar offense. We also award Gallego attorney's fees or 10% of the monetary award because Gallego was forced to litigate and incur expenses to protect his rights and interests. WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Amended Decision dated February 28, 2011 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 01314 is hereby SET ASIDE. The https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/66264 5/8