4/20/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly matter and the parties; and (4) there is an identity of parties, subject matter, and causes of action.[28] Castillon moved for reconsideration, but was later denied by the Court of Appeals.[29] Unfortunately, during the pendency of the motion for reconsideration, Castillon died.[30] Castillon's widow and their two (2) children filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari before this Court assailing the Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals.[31] Petitioners argue that Castillon's execution of the quitclaim cannot be considered voluntary, taking into account his situation at that time. He was already weak and in dire need of financial assistance; thus, he was in a disadvantageous position when he signed the quitclaim.[32] Moreover, petitioners aver that Castillon is not precluded from claiming his full disability benefits because a quitclaim is not valid if the compensation is less than what the claimant is legally entitled to.[33] In this case, Castillon is entitled to more than what respondents gave him. Respondents should have shouldered the total cost of chemotherapy amounting to P313,125.00, doctor's professional fee amounting to P400,000.00, sickness allowance for four (4) months amounting to US$2,256.00, and full disability benefits of US$60,000.00. Thus, the amount of P888,340.00 is not a fair and reasonable settlement of Castillon's claim.[34] Further, petitioners maintain that Castillon is entitled to full disability claim because his illness is work-related.[35] To reiterate, before boarding, he was subjected to a preemployment medical examination and was declared fit to work.[36] He was diagnosed during the term of his contract and at the very least, the nature of his job aggravated his condition.[37] His work was stressful and his meals on board were always canned goods, which are mostly high in fat. These facts were never disputed by respondents. [38] As to the declaration of the company-designated physician that Castillon's illness is not work-related, petitioners contend that this finding should be given scant consideration. Being the chosen physician of the respondents, the findings are clearly self-serving and biased.[39] Petitioners further argue that there is no res judicata in this case, because the proceedings before Labor Arbiter Del Rosario were fraudulent. The pro-forma complaint and the hurried dismissal with prejudice was orchestrated to take advantage of Castillon.[40] Petitioners claim that Castillon was only a layman and was not well-versed in legal matters. They alleged that it was Magsaysay who directed Castillon to sign a prepared pro-forma complaint, only to cause its immediate dismissal with prejudice.[41] In their Comment,[42] respondents counter that Castillon's illness is not compensable https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/66406 5/35