seaman for 13 yrs. No separation pay?

good day to everyone. I would like to ask something that concerns my father. He has been a seaman for 13 years already. Last year, he went back to the Philippines for good. Hes already tired of working as a seaman. We want to put up our own business so we need a starting capital. I accompanied him to his shipping agency to claim his benefits and separation pay. We were just given his benefits but the manager told us that my father is not entitled to separation pay because he is just a contractual employee. we were surprised because my father already served them for 13 years and yet he is still considered a contractual employee. To our disgust, we went out of the office and told them that we will return after consulting a lawyer. Luckily, I found this site so I might as well consult from anyone who has legal knowledge about our problem. than you very much and more power

glenda08, seafarers, like your father, are considered contractual employees. They can not be considered as regular employees under our Labor laws (Art. 280). Their employment is governed by the contracts they sign everytime they are rehired and their employment is terminated when the contract expires.

With regard to his entitlement to certain benefits, i.e. separation/severance pay, you need to look into the terms of his employment contract with the shipping lines. The contract usually dictates what benefits he is entitled to.

ang galing ni fbsensei. madami po akong natutunan sa inyo.
nagresearch po ako baka makatulong sa inyo.

In millares and lagda vs NLRC (July 29, 2002), the supreme Court reversing an earlier ruling , finally decided that seafarers are contractual employees. Their employment is governed by the POEA Standard Employment Contract they sign everytime they are hired. their employment terminates when the contract expires. When it does, they are not entitled to separation pay since their employment is contractually fixed for a certain period of time. They fall under the exception of Article 280

thank you for your replies although I do not agree the decision of the Supreme Court. Will the decision of the Supreme Court applies also to my father eventhough he is not party to the case?

Glenda08,

Supreme Court decisions are interpretations of what our law says. They serve as a guidance to the lower level courts as well as quasi judicial agencies, e.g. NLRC, in deciding similarly situated cases. Having said that, it does not matter that your father was a party to that case.

Like i said previously, you need to look into the terms of your father's contract as there might be equivalent benefits that he is entitled to.

sir fbsensei my father's contract does not provide such benefits. furthermore, he transferred from one agency to another.

sir pardon me for being ignorant of the law but I remember from my pol sci class not so long ago that the lawmaking power is lodged with congress. why is it that it seems the supreme court also exercises lawmaking power through its decisions. why do we follow its decisions as if it were a law? does it not violate the separation of powers? again sorry for my flawed reasoning

The Supreme Court does not enact laws...They interpret and construe the law, the latter term means to know the intention(we lawyers and lawyers to be call this legislative intent) and spirit of the law. This interpretation, which is properly called judicial precedent or stare decisis, will used by the courts if and when similar facts and similar issue will come out in a specific case. This power of the Supreme Court is part and parcel of the constitutional principle of Judicial Power

Moreover, congress through a legislation, the Civil Code( RA 386), has recognized the principle that Supreme Court rulings has the force and effect of a law.Thus Article 8 of the Civil Code provides that " Judicial decision applying and interpreting the law or the Constitution shall form part of the legal system of the Philippines". The judicial decision being referred to is the one made by the Supreme Court of the Philippines.

I agree with admiral thrawn. If I may add sir, STARE DECISIS requires courts to follow the rule established in earlier SC decisions. The doctrine, however, is not inflexible, so that when in the light of changing conditions, a rule has ceased to be beneficial to the society, courts may depart from it.

Very well said!

There goes your answer, Glenda08.