G.R. No. 158324. March 14, 2005.
Roberto Ravago, Petitioner, vs. Esso Eastern Marine, Ltd. and Trans-Global Maritime Agency, Inc., Respondents.

FACTS

Roberto Ravago was hired by Trans-Global Maritime Agency, Inc., the manning agent for Esso Eastern Marine, Ltd., and worked as a seaman on various Esso vessels from February 13, 1970, to August 22, 1992. His employment was governed by 34 separate and successive contracts, each for a fixed term, with three different but related Esso companies. After completing his last contract, he was on vacation leave and passed a pre-employment medical examination for a new contract. However, on October 12, 1992, before his embarkation, he was hit by a stray bullet, fracturing his leg. His attending physician and the company doctor subsequently declared him permanently unfit for sea duty due to the resulting disability.
Ravago was not rehired and was instead paid benefits under the Career Employment Incentive Plan after executing a quitclaim. He then filed a complaint for illegal dismissal with the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA), claiming he was a regular employee illegally terminated. The POEA and the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) dismissed his complaint, ruling he was a contractual employee whose fixed-term contracts had expired. The Court of Appeals affirmed these rulings.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether Ravago, engaged under 34 successive fixed-term contracts over 22 years, attained the status of a regular employee, thereby making his termination due to medical unfitness a case of illegal dismissal requiring just cause and due process.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and upheld Ravago’s status as a contractual employee. The legal logic rests on the principle that a seafarer’s contract is governed by the POEA Standard Employment Contract, which is for a fixed period. The Court distinguished land-based employment from sea-based employment, noting that the Labor Code’s provisions on regular employment do not automatically apply to overseas seafarers. The succession of contracts, even if for the same principal, does not constitute regular employment because each contract commences upon embarkation and terminates upon disembarkation after the agreed voyage.
The Court ruled that Ravago’s employment was contractually fixed and co-terminous with each voyage. His medical unfitness, certified by both his doctor and the company physician, validly prevented the renewal of his contract, as he could no longer perform the strenuous duties of a seaman. This was not a dismissal but a non-renewal due to a lawful cause. The payment of benefits and the quitclaim, absent proof of vitiation of consent, were deemed valid. Consequently, there was no illegal dismissal as the employer had no obligation to renew a fixed-term contract with an employee who had become medically unfit for the specific duties required.