employment of Delos Santos is within the Philippines, and not on a foreign shore. As correctly pointed out by [respondent], the provisions of the Labor Code shall govern their employer-employee relationship. xxx. (Words in bracket added.) The Court agrees with the conclusion of the Court of Appeals for two (2) main reasons. First, we the start with something elementary, i.e., POEA was created primarily to undertake a systematic program for overseas employment of Filipino workers and to protect their rights to fair and equitable employment practices.[16] And to ensure that overseas workers, including seafarers on board ocean-going vessels, are amply protected, the POEA is authorized to formulate employment standards in accordance with welfare objectives of the overseas employment program.[17] Given this consideration, the Court is at a loss to understand why the POEA-SEC should be made to continue to apply to domestic employment, as here, involving a Filipino seaman on board an inter-island vessel. Just as basic as the first reason is the fact that Delos Santos POEAapproved employment contract was for a definite term of one (1) month only, doubtless fixed to coincide with the pre-determined one-month long Philippines-Japan-Philippines conduction-voyage run. After the lapse of the said period, his employment under the POEA-approved contract may be deemed as functus oficio and Delos Santos employment pursuant thereto considered automatically terminated, there being no mutually-agreed renewal or extension of the expired contract.[18] This is as it should be. For, as we have held in the landmark case of Millares v. National Labor Relations Commission:[19] From the foregoing cases, it is clear that seafarers are considered contractual employees. Their employment is governed by the contracts they sign every time they are rehired and their employment is terminated when the contract expires. Their employment is contractually fixed for a certain period of time. They fall under the exception of Article 280 [of the Labor Code] whose employment has been fixed for a specific project or undertaking . . . We need not depart from the rulings of the Court in the two aforementioned cases which indeed constitute stare decisis with respect to the employment status of seafarers. (Underscoring and words in bracket added) Petitioners posture, citing Section 2 (A)[20] in relation to Section 18[21] of the POEA-SEC about the POEA approved contract still