Petitioners moved for the reconsideration of the Decision.  In its         7 May 2001 Resolution, the Court of Appeals modified its Decision by deducting Tanchico’s vacation from his length of service.  Thus:               WHEREFORE, our decision is hereby MODIFIED.  The petitioners are ordered to pay to the private respondent the following:    (1) disability wages equivalent to 18 days per year multiplied by 10 years less any amount already received under the company’s disability plan; prorated 13th month pay corresponding to eight (8) months of actual work; and attorney’s fee equivalent to 10% of the total award.               SO ORDERED.[12]            Petitioners went to this Court for relief on the following grounds:            I.  The Court of Appeals decided a question of substance not in accord with law, applicable decision of this Court and International Maritime Law when it ruled that private respondent, a seafarer, was a regular employee;               II.  The Court of Appeals decided a question of substance not in accord with law when it held that the private respondent was entitled to greater disability benefit than he was [sic];               III. The Court of Appeals decided a question of substance not heretofore determined by this Court when it ruled that private respondent was entitled to 13th month pay although it was not provided for in the contract of employment between petitioners and private respondent; and               IV. The Court of Appeals decided a question of substance not in accord with law when it awarded private respondent attorney’s fees despite the Labor Arbiter’s and the public respondent’s, albeit initially, dismissal of the complaint. [13]   The Issues            The issues are as follows:            1.  Whether Tanchico is a regular employee of petitioners; and