Upon his return to France Homicillada had himself medically examined again. On 27 April 1994 he was repatriated to the Philippines where he underwent a series of physical examinations at the Physicians Diagnostic Service Center, the same clinic that cleared him for work prior to his deployment to the MV Rhine. Initial examination indicated that Homicilladas manifestations of limping and lower back pain were probably due to a slipped-disc.v[5] This diagnosis was later confirmed in a Medical Evaluation Certificate dated 4 May 1994 prepared by the same clinic.vi[6] ACT-scan image of the lower back of Homicillada revealed a Degeneration Osteo Arthropathy, lumbar spine, with Disc Bulge, or simply a slipped-disc.vii[7] The diagnostic center recommended laminectomy and dissection on Homicilladas lower back to alleviate his pain.viii[8] However, upon learning that the surgery would cost approximately P40,000.00 petitioner MORE MARITIME disregarded the recommendation and proposed instead a pelvic traction treatment which was a less costly procedure. But this did not improve the condition of private respondent. Thus on 6 December 1994 Homicillada filed a complaint with the POEA against petitioners for disability and medical benefits as well as for payment of his two (2) months basic salary which petitioners had withheld.ix[9] In their answer petitioners countered that Homicillada was not entitled to the benefits he was demanding because his illness was pre-existing, concealed from respondents, unrelated to his employment, or is otherwise baseless.x[10] The POEA sustained Homicillada and ordered petitioners jointly and severally to pay the former US$1,642.30 or 14.93% of US$11,000.00 pursuant to Appendix I-A of the Standard Employment Contract Governing the Employment of All Filipino Seamen on Board OceanGoing Vessels at the exchange rate prevailing during actual payment. The POEA also held Alpha Insurance Company liable as surety of MORE MARITIME. From this ruling both parties appealed to the NLRC with Homicillada insisting that he was entitled to more than the amount decreed by the POEA. For their part, petitioners asserted that Homicillada was not entitled to disability benefits, reiterating that his sickness was not workconnected and was in fact already in existence prior to his deployment abroad. Petitioners further made reference to the quitclaim which was allegedly made by Homicillada in consideration of the post-repatriation medical treatment extended to him at the expense of the maritime agency and that, as a consequence, he was deemed to have released and absolved petitioners from any liability which would have been adjudged against them. In its challenged decision of 21 February 1996 the NLRC modified the appealed judgment by increasing the disability award to US$7,465.00 based on POEA Memorandum Circular No. 5, which took effect 20 March 1994, upgrading the basis for disability allowance to US$50,000.00. Petitioners moved for reconsideration which the NLRC denied in its resolution of 19 April 1996. In this recourse, petitioners allege that the NLRC acted with grave abuse of discretion when it completely ignored a Receipt and Release dated 16 August 1994 purportedly signed by Homicillada in favor of More Maritime Agencies while the case was pending in POEA, and affirming the finding of the POEA that the illness of Homicillada was work-connected.