J. Estaniel, informing him of his intention to avail of the optional early retirement plan in view of his twenty (20) years continuous service in the company.8[8] On July 13, 1989, respondent Trans-Global denied petitioner Lagdas request for availment of the optional early retirement scheme on the same grounds upon which petitioner Millares request was denied.9[9] On August 3, 1989, he requested for an extension of his leave of absence up to August 26, 1989 and the same was approved.10[10] However, on September 27, 1989, respondent Esso International, through H. Regenboog, Personnel Administrator, advised petitioner Lagda that in view of his "unavailability for contractual sea service," he had been dropped from the roster of crew members effective September 1, 1989.11[11] On October 5, 1989, petitioners Millares and Lagda filed a complaint-affidavit, docketed as POEA (M) 89-10-9671, for illegal dismissal and non-payment of employee benefits against private respondents Esso International and Trans-Global, before the POEA. Jo spped On July 17, 1991, the POEA rendered a decision dismissing the complaint for lack of merit.12[12] Petitioners appealed the decision to the NLRC. On June 1, 1993, public respondent NLRC rendered the assailed decision dismissing petitioners appeal and denying their motion for new trial for lack of merit.13[13] Hence, the instant petition for certiorari based on the following grounds: I.......PUBLIC RESPONDENT GRAVELY ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN RULING THAT PETITIONERS ARE NOT REGULAR EMPLOYEES. II.......PUBLIC RESPONDENT GRAVELY ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN RULING THAT THE TERMINATION OF PETITIONERS WAS VALID, 8[8] Rollo, p. 621. 9[9] Ibid. 10[10] Id., at 532. 11[11] Id., at 621-622. 12[12] Id., at 531. 13[13] Id., at 95.