between private respondent and petitioners was executed on April 10, 1996.  Hence, it is wrong for petitioners to cite this particular Memorandum because at the time of petitioners’ and private respondent’s execution of their contract of employment Memorandum Circular No. 055-96 was not yet effective.   What was in effect at the time private respondent’s Contract of Employment was executed was POEA Memorandum Circular No. 41, Series of 1989.  It is clearly provided under the second paragraph of private respondent’s Contract of Employment that the terms and conditions provided under Memorandum Circular No. 41, Series of 1989 shall be strictly and faithfully observed. Hence, it is Memorandum Circular No. 41, Series of 1989 which governs private respondent’s contract of employment.   Section H (6), Part I of Memorandum Circular No. 41, which has almost identical provisions with Section 19 (C) of Memorandum Circular No. 055-96, provides as follows:                    SECTION H.  TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT               x x x x   6.  If the vessel arrives at a convenient port within a period of three (3) months before the expiration of the Contract, the master/employer may repatriate the seaman from such port provided that the seaman shall be paid all his earned wages.  In addition, the seaman shall also be paid his leave pay for the entire contract period plus a termination pay equivalent to one (1) month of his basic pay, provided, however, that this mode of termination may only be exercised by the master/employer if the original contact period of the seaman is at least ten (10) months; provided, further, that the conditions for this mode of termination shall not apply to dismissal for cause.   The Court agrees with private respondent’s contention that petitioners’ arguments are misplaced.  Petitioners may not use the above-quoted provision as basis for terminating private respondent’s employment because it is incongruent with their primary defense that the latter’s dismissal from employment was for cause.  Petitioners may not claim that they ended private respondent’s services because he is guilty of desertion and at the same time argue that they exercised their option to prematurely terminate his employment, even without cause, simply because they have the right to do so under their contract.  These grounds for