On May 18, 1996, petitioner employed Rizalino M. Estenzo, respondent, as a deck fitter in LPG/C Helikon with a monthly salary of US $618.00. His employment covered a period of ten (10) months or from May 18, 1996 to March 18, 1997. Barely three (3) months thereafter or on August 16, 1996, petitioner sent notice to its officers and crew, including respondent, advising them of the sale of LPG/C Helikon to Varun Shipping-Bombay, thus: As you already are aware of the LPG/C Helikon was sold to Varun Shipping-Bombay with expected delivery mid of September 1996. You are therefore requested to give notice to Filipino officers and crew accordingly. All Manila employed crew will be taken cared of according to TCC/CBA. They are entitled to two (2) months basic wages, if Manila cant employ them within 30 days after arrival in Manila. Such payment will be made in Manila and not onboard. As a consequence, on September 21, 1996, respondent was repatriated to the Philippines. Petitioner paid him P32,074.20 representing his unpaid wages for four (4) months and separation benefits at the rate of two months basic salary. He then executed and signed a Release and Quitclaim datedOctober 28, 1996. Subsequently or on November 18, 1996, respondent filed with petitioner an application for re-employment in its other vessels. As a pre-employment requirement, petitioner directed him to undergo a medical examination at the American Hospital. On January 2, 1997, he was diagnosed with hypertensive cardiovascular disease with ischemia. On February 1, 1997, his attending physician issued a medical certificate declaring him unfit for sea duty. On two separate occasions or on March 11, 1997 and April 15, 1997, respondent sought for a second opinion at the Seamans Hospital. It confirmed his sickness as hypertensive cardiovascular disease and declared him unfit for work. This prompted respondent to file with the Social Security System (SSS) a claim for disability benefits. Later, he filed with petitioner a similar claim for disability benefits under the POEA Standard Employment Contract. However, petitioner rejected his claim.