G.R. No. 123882 November 16, 1998
Joe Ashley Agga, et al., petitioners, vs. National Labor Relations Commission, Supply Oilfield Services, Inc. and Underseas Drilling, Inc., respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners were hired by private respondent Supply Oilfield Services, Inc. (SOS) to work on a drillship operated by Underseas Drilling, Inc. (UDI). Their employment contracts stipulated a fixed monthly compensation for a 12-hour daily, 7-day weekly work schedule, which was stated to cover basic pay, allowances, and all benefits granted by law. They filed a complaint with the POEA claiming non-payment of overtime, holiday, rest day, 13th month pay, and night shift differential, and alleged non-compliance with mandatory insurance rules. They also argued that their use of both overseas worker passports and seaman’s books entitled them to benefits for both land-based and sea-based workers.
The POEA dismissed the complaint, finding no underpayment as the fixed salary, when combined with their “days-off pay,” met or exceeded statutory minimums. This dismissal, concerning fourteen of the nineteen petitioners in consolidated cases, became final. On appeal, the NLRC affirmed the POEA’s decision. Petitioners elevated the case to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

The principal issues were whether petitioners were underpaid, whether their “days-off pay” was part of their salary, whether respondents complied with insurance requirements, and whether petitioners were entitled to seafarers’ benefits.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the NLRC decision. On the wage issue, the Court upheld the POEA’s computation, which was final and executory for the fourteen petitioners due to their failure to appeal the earlier consolidated ruling. The POEA correctly found that the fixed monthly rate, inclusive of the “days-off pay” received during their off periods, resulted in an average monthly salary that satisfied statutory minimums for basic salary, overtime, and other benefits. The claim for separate vacation pay was erroneous, as it was already factored into the computation.
Regarding insurance, the Court found the claim unmeritorious, as the POEA and NLRC had established that petitioners were covered by policies from Blue Cross (Asia-Pacific) Insurance, Ltd., which provided coverage superior to the mandated minimum. The new argument that the insurer was a foreign company unlicensed in the Philippines was raised too late and could not be considered. Finally, the Court agreed that petitioners were land-based workers, as their duties on an oil rig had nothing to do with vessel manning or navigation; thus, they were not entitled to seafarers’ benefits. Their use of a seaman’s book did not alter this classification.