Further, petitioner points out that a seaman who requests for early termination of his contract is liable for his repatriation cost as well as the transportation cost of his replacement, deductible from the seafarer’s balance of wages. Relatedly, petitioner claims that the repatriation money it extended to respondents constituted sufficient consideration for the latter’s quitclaims. For their part, respondents counter that the petition should be denied outright for raising a factual question. They point out that the sole issue in this case is whether or not the Letters of Indemnity were voluntarily executed by respondents, which according to respondents is clearly a factual issue. At any rate, respondents maintain that the Court of Appeals correctly ruled that the dismissal was illegal.  They insist they are entitled to security of tenure until the expiration of the term of their respective contracts. Thus, their employment may only be terminated for valid cause and after notice and hearing. On the Letters of Indemnity, respondents argue that these should be strictly construed against petitioner as the one who prepared it, and respondents’ participation was limited to merely affixing their signatures on it. Respondents claim that the Letters of Indemnity, far from signifying their resignation, merely express an undertaking on the part of petitioner and Kara Seal not to file any disciplinary action against respondents. Respondents posit that petitioner and Kara Seal used said undertaking as leverage to obtain their signature. We rule for the respondents. Pacta privata juri publico derogare non possunct.  Private agreements between parties cannot derogate from public right.