No pronouncement as to costs. SO ORDERED. On October 20, 1999, petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration but was denied by the Appellate Court in its Resolution dated December 29, 1999. Hence, this petition for review on certiorari. The sole legal issue for our resolution is whether the termination of respondents services precludes his entitlement to permanent disability benefits. Petitioners, citing Sections 18[3] and 23[4] of the POEA Standard Employment Contract, contend that it is not liable to pay respondent his permanent disability benefits. He suffered hypertensive cardiovascular disease with ischemia after his repatriation to the Philippines by reason of the sale of the vessel. Thus, there was no more employer-employee relationship between them. But respondent, citing Section 3 of the parties TCC-CBA, quoted as follows: Section 3. Services shall be deemed uninterrupted when a seaman is paid on vacation or awaiting assignment after his paid vacation, or is on leave due to medical reasons, or when the interruption is not attributable to the seamans fault or own-making. maintains that the employer-employee relationship with petitioner has not been interrupted since his repatriation was obviously not attributable to his own fault but actually by reason of the sale of petitioners vessel. Thus, petitioners are still liable to pay him his permanent disability benefits. We agree with respondent. The POEA Standard Employment Contract for Seaman is designed primarily for the protection and benefit of Filipino seamen in the pursuit of their employment on board ocean-going vessels. Its