G.R. No. 184318 - Unica vs. Anscor Swire Ship Management Corp.

Petitioner, Antonio E. Unica, had been employed by respondent Anscor Swire Ship Management Corporation, a manning agency, since the late 1980s under various contracts.
His employment was governed by fixed-term contracts, typical in the maritime industry, where each contract's duration was based on a mutual agreement between the parties.

The last employment contract ran from January 29, 2000 to October 25, 2000, establishing a definitive period of service.
Despite the contract expiring on October 25, 2000, petitioner was not immediately repatriated because the vessel was still at sea, necessitating his continued stay on board until a safe disembarkation was possible.
Petitioner was repatriated on November 14, 2000, a delay of 20 days beyond the contractual expiration date.
Based on his continued stay aboard the vessel, petitioner claimed that there was an implied renewal of his contract for an additional nine months, and that his termination upon repatriation was illegal.

Petitioner initiated a case against respondent seeking remedy for illegal dismissal and various monetary benefits including retirement, disability, medical benefits, separation pay, and holiday pay.
The Labor Arbiter ruled in favour of petitioner on May 31, 2004, determining that the delay in repatriation constituted an implied renewal of the contract for another nine months.

The Arbiter awarded petitioner wages for the unexpired portion of the implied renewed contract along with medical benefits and attorney's fees.

The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) affirmed with modifications the Labor Arbiter’s decision on August 24, 2005.

The NLRC agreed that petitioner’s service extended beyond the original contract due to being repatriated only on November 14, 2000.
However, the NLRC reduced the award of attorney’s fees and deleted the award for medical benefits.

Respondent subsequently elevated the matter by filing a Petition for Certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA), contesting the notion of an implied renewal.

On August 15, 2006, the CA annulled and set aside the decisions of both the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC.
The CA ruled that the petitioner’s extra 20-day period onboard was attributed solely to the ship’s location at sea and to safety considerations, not an implied contract extension.
A later resolution on August 11, 2008, denying the petitioner’s motion for reconsideration, confirmed the CA’s holding.

Petitioner sought review on certiorari under Rule 45 to set aside the CA’s Decision and its subsequent Resolution.
The central argument relied on the contention that the petitioner’s continued service onboard constituted an implied renewal of his contract, thereby rendering his repatriation an illegal dismissal.
Respondent maintained that the employment contract was strictly fixed-term, and the extra period was solely due to the practical issue of the vessel being at sea, not an indication of mutual agreement to extend the contract.

Whether or not the petitioner’s continued stay aboard the vessel for 20 days beyond the contract expiration constituted an implied renewal of his employment contract.
Whether the petitioner’s repatriation on November 14, 2000, without a valid cause to extend the contract, amounted to an illegal dismissal under the principles governing fixed-term maritime contracts.
The applicability of the Standard Terms and Conditions Governing the Employment of Filipino Seafarers concerning repatriation and payment of wages during the delay in disembarkation.