Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
THIRD DIVISION
G.R. No. 148130 June 16, 2006
PETROLEUM SHIPPING LIMITED (o!"e!#$ ESSO INTERN%TION%L SHIPPING
(&%H%M%S' CO., LTD.' (n) TR%NS*GLO&%L M%RITIME %GENC+, INC., Petitioners,
vs.
N%TION%L L%&OR REL%TIONS COMMISSION (n) ,LORELLO -. T%NCHICO,
Respondents.
D E C I S I O N
C%RPIO, J.:
T.e C(/e
efore the !ourt is a petition for revie"
#
assailin$ the %& 'anuar( %))# Decision
%
and *
Ma( %))# Resolution
+
of the !ourt of ,ppeals in !,-..R. SP No. &/*&0.
T.e %n0e1e)en0 ,(10/
On 0 March #1*2, 3sso International Shippin$ 4aha5as6 !o., 7td., 483sso86 throu$h
Trans-.lobal Mariti5e ,$enc(, Inc. 48Trans-.lobal86 hired 9lorello :. Tanchico
48Tanchico86 as 9irst ,ssistant 3n$ineer. In #12#, Tanchico beca5e !hief 3n$ineer. On
#+ October #11%, Tanchico returned to the Philippines for a t"o-5onth vacation after
co5pletin$ his ei$ht-5onth deplo(5ent.
On 2 Dece5ber #11%, Tanchico under"ent the re;uired standard 5edical e<a5ination
prior to boardin$ the vessel. The 5edical e<a5ination revealed that Tanchico "as
sufferin$ fro5 8Ische5ic Heart Disease, H(pertensive !ardio-Muscular Disease and
Diabetes Mellitus.8 Tanchico too= 5edications for t"o 5onths and a subse;uent stress
test sho"ed a ne$ative result. Ho"ever, 3sso no lon$er deplo(ed Tanchico. Instead,
3sso offered to pa( hi5 benefits under the !areer 35plo(5ent Incentive Plan.
Tanchico accepted the offer.
On %0 ,pril #11+, Tanchico filed a co5plaint a$ainst 3sso, Trans-.lobal and Mala(an
Insurance !o., Inc. 48Mala(an86 before the Philippine Overseas 35plo(5ent
,d5inistration 4PO3,6 for ille$al dis5issal "ith clai5s for bac="a$es, separation pa(,
disabilit( and 5edical benefits and #+th 5onth pa(. In vie" of the enact5ent of
Republic ,ct No. 2)/% 48R, 2)/%86
/
transferrin$ to the National 7abor Relations
!o55ission 4N7R!6 the >urisdiction over 5one( clai5s of overseas "or=ers, the case
"as indorsed to the ,rbitration ranch of the National !apital Re$ion. In a Decision
&

dated #0 October #110, 7abor ,rbiter 'ose .. De Vera 487abor ,rbiter De Vera86
dis5issed the co5plaint for lac= of 5erit. Tanchico appealed to the N7R!.
T.e Ru#2n3 o 0.e NLRC
In its Resolution
0
of + Septe5ber #112, the N7R! affir5ed the Decision of 7abor ,rbiter
De Vera. Tanchico filed a 5otion for reconsideration. In a Resolution
*
pro5ul$ated on
%1 March #111, the N7R! reconsidered its + Septe5ber #112 Resolution, as follo"s?
On the clai5 of ille$al dis5issal, the sa5e is unavailin$ as co5plainant had been
declared as one "ith partial per5anent disabilit(. Thus, he should be entitled to
disabilit( benefit of #2 da(s for ever( (ear of credited service of fourteen 4#/6 (ears less
the a5ount he alread( received under the !o5pan(@s Disabilit( Plan.
On the clai5 of #+th 5onth pa(, the respondent ,$enc( not fallin$ under the
enu5erated e<e5pted e5plo(ers under P.D. 2&# and in the absence of an( proof that
respondent is alread( pa(in$ its e5plo(ees a #+th 5onth pa( or 5ore in a calendar
(ear, perforce, respondent a$enc( should pa( co5plainant his 5onthl( pa( co5puted at
AsicB the actual 5onth AsicB "or=ed, "hich is 2 5onths.
Since co5plainant "as forced to liti$ate his case, he is hereb( a"arded #)C of the total
a"ard as attorne(@s fees.
SO ORD3R3D.
2

3sso and Trans-.lobal 5oved for the reconsideration of the %1 March #111
Resolution.
1
In its %* 'ul( #111 Resolution,
#)
the N7R! denied their 5otion.
3sso, no" usin$ the na5e Petroleu5 Shippin$ 7i5ited 48Petroleu5 Shippin$86, and
Trans-.lobal 4collectivel( referred to as 8petitioners86 filed a petition for certiorari before
the !ourt of ,ppeals assailin$ the %1 March #111 and %* 'ul( #111 Resolutions of the
N7R!.
T.e Ru#2n3 o 0.e Cou!0 o %44e(#/
1
In its Decision pro5ul$ated on %& 'anuar( %))#, the !ourt of ,ppeals affir5ed in toto
the %1 March #111 Resolution of the N7R!.
The !ourt of ,ppeals ruled that Tanchico "as a re$ular e5plo(ee of Petroleu5
Shippin$. The !ourt of ,ppeals held that petitioners are not e<e5pt fro5 the covera$e
of Presidential Decree No. 2&#, as a5ended 48PD 2&#86
##
"hich 5andates the pa(5ent
of #+th 5onth pa( to all e5plo(ees. The !ourt of ,ppeals further ruled that Tanchico is
entitled to disabilit( benefits based on his #/ (ears of tenure "ith petitioners. The !ourt
of ,ppeals stated that the e5plo(er-e5plo(ee relationship subsisted even durin$ the
period of Tanchico@s vacation. The !ourt of ,ppeals noted that petitioners "ere a"are of
Tanchico@s 5edical histor( (et the( still deplo(ed hi5 for #/ (ears. 9inall(, the !ourt of
,ppeals sustained the a"ard of attorne(@s fees.
Petitioners 5oved for the reconsideration of the Decision. In its * Ma( %))# Resolution,
the !ourt of ,ppeals 5odified its Decision b( deductin$ Tanchico@s vacation fro5 his
len$th of service. Thus?
:H3R39OR3, our decision is hereb( MODI9I3D. The petitioners are ordered to pa( to
the private respondent the follo"in$? 4#6 disabilit( "a$es e;uivalent to #2 da(s per (ear
5ultiplied b( #) (ears less an( a5ount alread( received under the co5pan(@s disabilit(
planD prorated #+th 5onth pa( correspondin$ to ei$ht 426 5onths of actual "or=D and
attorne(@s fee e;uivalent to #)C of the total a"ard.
SO ORD3R3D.
#%

Petitioners "ent to this !ourt for relief on the follo"in$ $rounds?
I. The !ourt of ,ppeals decided a ;uestion of substance not in accord "ith la",
applicable decision of this !ourt and International Mariti5e 7a" "hen it ruled
that private respondent, a seafarer, "as a re$ular e5plo(eeD
II. The !ourt of ,ppeals decided a ;uestion of substance not in accord "ith la"
"hen it held that the private respondent "as entitled to $reater disabilit(
benefit than he "as AsicBD
III. The !ourt of ,ppeals decided a ;uestion of substance not heretofore
deter5ined b( this !ourt "hen it ruled that private respondent "as entitled to
#+th 5onth pa( althou$h it "as not provided for in the contract of e5plo(5ent
bet"een petitioners and private respondentD and
IV. The !ourt of ,ppeals decided a ;uestion of substance not in accord "ith
la" "hen it a"arded private respondent attorne(@s fees despite the 7abor
,rbiter@s and the public respondent@s, albeit initiall(, dis5issal of the
co5plaint.
#+

T.e I//ue/
The issues are as follo"s?
#. :hether Tanchico is a re$ular e5plo(ee of petitionersD and
%. :hether Tanchico is entitled to #+th 5onth pa(, disabilit( benefits and
attorne(@s fees.
T.e Ru#2n3 o T.2/ Cou!0
The petition is partl( 5eritorious.
Seafarers are Contractual Employees
The issue on "hether seafarers are re$ular e5plo(ees is alread( a settled 5atter.
In Ravago v. Esso Eastern Marine, Ltd.,
#/
the !ourt traced its rulin$ in a nu5ber of
cases that seafarers are contractual, not re$ular, e5plo(ees. Thus, in Brent School,
nc. v. !amora,
#&
the !ourt cited overseas e5plo(5ent contract as an e<a5ple of
contracts "here the concept of re$ular e5plo(5ent does not appl(, "hatever the nature
of the en$a$e5ent and despite the provisions of ,rticle %2) of the 7abor !ode. In
Coyoca v. "LRC,
#0
the !ourt held that the a$enc( is liable for pa(5ent of a sea5an@s
5edical and disabilit( benefits in the event that the principal fails or refuses to pa( the
benefits or "a$es due the sea5an althou$h the sea5an 5a( not be a re$ular e5plo(ee
of the a$enc(.
The !ourt s;uarel( passed upon the issue in Millares v. "LRC
#*
"here one of the
issues raised "as "hether seafarers are re$ular or contractual e5plo(ees "hose
e5plo(5ent are ter5inated ever(ti5e their contracts of e5plo(5ent e<pire. The !ourt
e<plained?
AIBt is clear that seafarers are considered contractual e5plo(ees. The( can not be
considered as re$ular e5plo(ees under ,rticle %2) of the 7abor !ode. Their
e5plo(5ent is $overned b( the contracts the( si$n ever(ti5e the( are rehired and their
e5plo(5ent is ter5inated "hen the contract e<pires. Their e5plo(5ent is contractuall(
fi<ed for a certain period of ti5e. The( fall under the e<ception of ,rticle %2) "hose
e5plo(5ent has been fi<ed for a specific pro>ect or underta=in$ the co5pletion or
2
ter5ination of "hich has been deter5ined at the ti5e of en$a$e5ent of the e5plo(ee
or "here the "or= or services to be perfor5ed is seasonal in nature and the
e5plo(5ent is for the duration of the season. :e need not depart fro5 the rulin$s of
the !ourt in the t"o afore5entioned cases "hich indeed constitute stare decisis with
respect to the e5plo(5ent status of seafarers.
Petitioners insist that the( should be considered re$ular e5plo(ees, since the( have
rendered services "hich are usuall( necessar( and desirable to the business of their
e5plo(er, and that the( have rendered 5ore than t"ent( 4%)6 (ears of service. :hile
this 5a( be true, the Brent case has, ho"ever, held that there are certain for5s of
e5plo(5ent "hich also re;uire the perfor5ance of usual and desirable functions and
"hich e<ceed one (ear but do not necessaril( attain re$ular e5plo(5ent status under
,rticle %2). Overseas "or=ers includin$ seafarers fall under this t(pe of e5plo(5ent
"hich are $overned b( the 5utual a$ree5ents of the parties.
In this >urisdiction and as clearl( stated in the Coyoca case, 9ilipino sea5en are
$overned b( the Rules and Re$ulations of the PO3,. The Standard 35plo(5ent
!ontract $overnin$ the e5plo(5ent of ,ll 9ilipino Sea5en on oard Ocean-.oin$
Vessels of the PO3,, particularl( in Part I, Sec. ! specificall( provides that the contract
of sea5en shall be for a fi<ed period. ,nd in no case should the contract of sea5en be
lon$er than #% 5onths. It reads?
Section !. Duration of !ontract
The period of e5plo(5ent shall be for a fi<ed period but in no case to exceed 12
months and shall be stated in the !re" !ontract. ,n( e<tension of the !ontract period
shall be sub>ect to the 5utual consent of the parties.
Moreover, it is an accepted 5ariti5e industr( practice that e5plo(5ent of seafarers are
for a fi<ed period onl(. !onstrained b( the nature of their e5plo(5ent "hich is ;uite
peculiar and uni;ue in itself, it is for the 5utual interest of both the seafarer and the
e5plo(er "h( the e5plo(5ent status 5ust be contractual onl( or for a certain period of
ti5e. Seafarers spend 5ost of their ti5e at sea and understandabl(, the( can not sta(
for a lon$ and an indefinite period of ti5e at sea. 7i5ited access to shore societ( durin$
the e5plo(5ent "ill have an adverse i5pact on the seafarer. The national, cultural and
lin$ual diversit( a5on$ the cre" durin$ the !O3 is a realit( that necessitates the
li5itation of its period.
Petitioners 5a=e 5uch of the fact that the( have been continuall( re-hired or their
contracts rene"ed before the contracts e<pired 4"hich has ad5ittedl( been $oin$ on for
t"ent( 4%)6 (ears6. ( such circu5stance the( clai5 to have ac;uired re$ular status
"ith all the ri$hts and benefits appurtenant to it.
Such contention is untenable. Endeniabl(, this circu5stance of continuous re-hirin$ "as
dictated b( practical considerations that e<perienced cre" 5e5bers are 5ore preferred.
Petitioners "ere onl( $iven priorit( or preference because of their e<perience and
;ualifications but this does not detract the fact that herein petitioners are contractual
e5plo(ees. The( can not be considered re$ular e5plo(ees. < < <
#2

The !ourt reiterated the Millares rulin$ in #u$Miro v. %dora&le
#1
"here it held that a
radio officer on board a vessel cannot be considered as a re$ular e5plo(ee
not"ithstandin$ that the "or= he perfor5s is necessar( and desirable in the business of
the co5pan(.
Thus, in the present case, the !ourt of ,ppeals erred in rulin$ that Tanchico "as a
re$ular e5plo(ee of Petroleu5 Shippin$.
'n ()th Month *ay
The !ourt of ,ppeals pre5ised its $rant of #+th 5onth pa( on its rulin$ that Tanchico
"as a re$ular e5plo(ee. The !ourt of ,ppeals also ruled that petitioners are not e<e5pt
fro5 the covera$e of PD 2&# "hich re;uires all e5plo(ers to pa( their e5plo(ees a
#+th 5onth pa(.
:e do not a$ree "ith the !ourt of ,ppeals. ,$ain, Tanchico "as a contractual, not a
re$ular, e5plo(ee. 9urther, PD 2&# does not appl( to seafarers. The :H3R3,S
clauses of PD 2&# provides?
:H3R3,S, it is necessar( to further protect the level of real "a$es fro5 rava$es of
"orld-"ide inflationD
:H3R3,S, there has been no increase in the le$al 5ini5u5 "a$e rates since #1*)D
:H3R3,S, the !hrist5as season is an opportune ti5e for societ( to sho" its concern
for the pli$ht of the "or=in$ 5asses so the( 5a( properl( celebrate !hrist5as and Ne"
Fear.
PD 2&# conte5plates the situation of land-based "or=ers, and not of seafarers "ho
$enerall( earn 5ore than do5estic land-based "or=ers.
Tanchico@s e5plo(5ent is $overned b( his !ontract of 3nlist5ent 48!ontract86.
%)
The
!ontract has been approved b( the PO3, in accordance "ith Title I, oo= One of the
7abor !ode and the PO3, Rules .overnin$ 35plo(5ent.
%#
The covera$e of the
!ontract includes !o5pensation, Overti5e, Sunda(s and Holida(s, Vacations, 7ivin$
3
,llo"ance, Sic=ness, In>ur( and Death, Transportation and Travel 3<pense,
Subsistence and 7ivin$ Guarters. It does not provide for the pa(5ent of #+th 5onth pa(.
The !ontract of 35plo(5ent,
%%
"hich is the standard e5plo(5ent contract of the
PO3,, li=e"ise does not provide for the pa(5ent of #+th 5onth pa(.
In Coyoca v. "LRC "hich involves a clai5 for separation pa(, this !ourt held?
9urther5ore, petitioner@s contract did not provide for separation benefits. In this
connection, it is i5portant to note that neither does PO3, standard e5plo(5ent
contract for 9ilipino sea5en provide for such benefits.
,s a 9ilipino sea5an, petitioner is $overned b( the Rules and Re$ulations .overnin$
Overseas 35plo(5ent and the said Rules do not provide for separation or ter5ination
pa(. < < <
%+

Hence, in the absence of an( provision in his !ontract $overnin$ the pa(5ent of #+th
5onth pa(, Tanchico is not entitled to the benefit.
'n +isa&ility Benefits
Petitioners alle$e that Tanchico@s !ontract ended on #+ October #11% "hen he returned
to Manila. The( alle$e that the vacation period is not part of the period of e5plo(5ent.
:e cannot accept petitioners@ contention.
The duration of the !ontract "as for ei$ht 5onths. The !ontract also provides?
,rticle V
V,!,TIONS
Vacation da(s shall be earned at the rate of seven and one-half da(s 4*.&6 da(s for
each thirt( 4+)6 da(s of continuous service, calculated fro5 date of departure fro5
Manila and until date of return to Manila. Vacation be$ins on the da( follo"in$ arrival in
Manila.
3ver( effort "ill be 5ade to $rant earned vacations pro5ptl( after ei$ht 426 5onths of
serviceD ho"ever, the !OMP,NF shall have the ri$ht to advance or dela( vacations to
coincide "ith vessel repairs, for operational reasons or due to personal re;uire5ents.
S3,9,R3R shall receive vacation co5pensation for each thirt( 4+)6 da(s of continuous
service in accordance "ith the rates listed in ,ddendu5 No. #, !olu5n 4#%6, to be paid
in Manila. ,5ounts shall be pro-rated accordin$ to the ran=sHratin$s and period of ti5e
in "hich the S3,9,R3R served. 9or period of less than thirt( 4+)6 da(s service,
vacations and co5pensation shall be reduced proportionatel(.
Ti5e off for illness, in>ur(, vacation, leave of absence or stand-b( shall not be
considered service under the provisions of this ,rticle.
It is the !OMP,NF@s intention that each S3,9,R3R en>o( his full vacation period.
ecause of ur$ent fleet needs, ho"ever, it occasionall( 5a( be necessar( to recall a
S3,9,R3R earl( fro5 vacation.
%/

Since Tanchico received co5pensation durin$ his vacation, the !ontract did not
ter5inate on the da( he returned to Manila. The !ontract re5ained in force durin$
Tanchico@s vacation period.
Ho"ever, the !ourt of ,ppeals erred "hen it ruled that Tanchico is entitled to disabilit(
benefits of #2 da(s for ever( (ear of service. The !ourt of ,ppeals ruled that Tanchico@s
e5plo(5ent "as continuous and that his tenure "ith petitioners "as for #/ (ears.
,$ain, the !ourt of ,ppeals assu5ed that Tanchico "as a re$ular e5plo(ee. The !ourt
of ,ppeals failed to consider that Tanchico@s e5plo(5ent ter5inated "ith the end of
each contract.
The !ontract provides?
,rticle VIII
SI!IN3SS-IN'ERFHD3,TH
,. The !OMP,NF shall provide, durin$ the period of the !ontract, Insurance
covera$e for the S3,9,R3R a$ainst loss of life, per5anent disabilit(,
te5porar( disabilit(, in>ur(, occupational illness, hospital and 5edical e<pense
in such a5ounts as the !OMP,NF shall deter5ine but not lo"er than "hat the
!OMP,NF "ould have to pa( under the Philippine Overseas 35plo(5ent
,d5inistration@s re;uire5ents or the vessel@s fla$ state re;uire5ents
4"hichever is hi$her6.
. If S3,9,R3R is re5oved fro5 a vessel for 5edical treat5ent he shall be
entitled to receive a disabilit( benefit e;ual to his 5onthl( "a$e rate 4or pro-
rata thereof6 fro5 date of dise5bar=ation until date of re>oinin$ his vessel,
assi$n5ent to another vessel or until date of repatriation to Manila if still
disabled. Medical, sur$ical, hospital, or clinical treat5ent shall be
reco55ended b( a doctor approved b( the !OMP,NF and S3,9,R3R 5ust
follo" all 5edical advices. S3,9,R3R "ill not be entitled to disabilit( benefit
4
pa(5ents for disabilit( resultin$ fro5 his o"n 5isconduct, ne$li$ence, unla"ful
acts, altercations, vice, etc.
!. ,fter dise5bar=ation fro5 a vessel, the S3,9,R3R is entitled to one
hundred percent 4#))C6 of his "a$es until he is declared fit or the de$ree of
per5anent disabilit( has been assessed b( the !OMP,NF@s ph(sician for a
5a<i5u5 period of #%) da(s co55encin$ on date of such dise5bar=ation.
Epon the e<piration of such #%) da(s and if the S3,9,R3R is still disabled,
the S3,9,R3R shall be paid his "a$es e;uivalent to #2 da(s for ever( (ear of
credited service.
In special instances and at the discretion of the !OMP,NF, the 5a<i5u5
nu5ber of da(s of !OMP,NF benefits 5a( be e<tended be(ond #%) da(s for
a S3,9,R3R "ith over 2) 5onths credited !OMP,NF service, or in such
other case as 5a( be deter5ined b( the !OMP,NF.
Epon e<piration of !OMP,NF benefits and if still disabled, the follo"in$
a5ounts shall be paid up to 5a<i5u5 of +0& da(s, inclusive of the period of
the above benefits.
,ll Ran=s ................................................ ES J#) per da(
D. I )2/(52#20$ /.ou#) o11u! 6.2#e SE%,%RER 2/ on 7(1(02on, .e "u/0,
620.2n 3 )($/ !o" )(0e 0.e!eo, no02$ 0.e COMP%N+8/ %3en0 2n 0.e
P.2#2442ne/ 2n o!)e! 0.(0 0.e #(00e! /.(## 5e (5#e 0o 1e!02$ (/ 0o .2/
1on)202on. Ce!0221(02on o )2/(52#20$ !e9u2!e) o! 4($"en0 o (n$ )2/(52#20$
5ene20/ "u/0 5e (44!o7e) 5$ ( )o10o! (44o2n0e) 5$ 0.e COMP%N+ (n)
SE%,%RER "u/0 5e )2/(5#e) /e7en (:' )($/ o! "o!e 0o 5e e#2325#e 0o
5ene20/ (n) /21; #e(7e /0(0u/, COMP%N+ 5ene20/ /.(## 5e #2"20e) 0o (
"(<2"u" o 18 )($/.
enefits under the !OMP,NF Disabilit( Plan shall be 5ade onl( to the e<tent
and in such a5ounts as are e;ual to the differential bet"een an( pa(5ents
"hich 5a( be due S3,9,R3R under !OMP,NF@s obli$ation as set forth in the
#st para$raph of this ,rticle VIII and 1) percent of S3,9,R3R@s last "a$e
rate.
3. In case of death at sea or at a forei$n port, the tradition of the sea and
re;uire5ents of the la"s of such forei$n port "ill be observed. If practical,
ever( effort "ill be 5ade on the part of the !OMP,NF to return the re5ains of
a deceased S3,9,R3R to Manila at !OMP,NF e<pense.
9. The S3,9,R3R ac=no"led$es that even "ithout si$ned receipts, an( "a$e
pa(5ents 5ade to hi5 for a period durin$ "hich he is entitled to benefits under
an( la" b( reason of death, te5porar( or per5anent disabilit(, shall be
dee5ed an advance pa(5ent of co5pensation benefits due to hi5 under such
la", but onl( to the e<tent of benefits due for the period of disabilit( durin$
"hich "a$es are paid.
:a$es, as set forth in ,ddendu5 No. #, !olu5n 4#6, shall be the basis for an(
calculation of benefits due S3,9,R3R under this ,rticle VIII.
%&
435phasis supplied6
Indications that Tanchico "as sufferin$ fro5 ische5ia "ere detected on 2 Dece5ber
#11% durin$ Tanchico@s vacation period. Thus, petitioners paid hi5 disabilit( benefits for
#2 da(s in accordance "ith the !ontract. Tanchico cannot clai5 that he onl( ac;uired
the illness durin$ his last deplo(5ent since the Medical Report
%0
he sub5itted to the
N7R! sho"ed that he has been h(pertensive since #12+ and diabetic since #12*. In
the absence of concrete proof that Tanchico ac;uired his disabilit( durin$
his last deplo(5ent and not durin$ his vacation, he is onl( entitled to disabilit( benefits
for #2 da(s.
Petitioners clai5 that the( alread( paid Tanchico his disabilit( benefits for #2 da(s but
he refused to si$n the receipt.
%*
Tanchico alle$ed that he "as onl( paid under the
!areer 35plo(5ent Incentive Plan.
%2
This is a factual 5atter "hich this !ourt cannot
resolve. This 5atter has to be re5anded to the 7abor ,rbiter for resolution.
-HERE,ORE, "e GR%NT the petition. :e RE=ERSE and SET %SIDE the %& 'anuar(
%))# Decision and * Ma( %))# Resolution of the !ourt of ,ppeals in !,-..R. SP No.
&/*&0. :e REINST%TE the #0 October #110 Decision of 7abor ,rbiter 'ose .. De Vera
dis5issin$ the co5plaint for ille$al dis5issal and the clai5s for bac="a$es, separation
pa( and #+th 5onth pa(. :e REM%ND the case to the 7abor ,rbiter to deter5ine if
9lorello Tanchico has been paid his disabilit( benefits for #2 da(s in accordance "ith his
!ontract of 3nlist5ent. If no pa(5ent has been 5ade, the 7abor ,rbiter is DIRECTED
to deter5ine the a5ount Tanchico is entitled.
SO ORDERED.
5