termination are inconsistent with each other such that the use of one necessarily negates resort to the other.  Besides, it appears from the records that petitioners’ alternative defense was pleaded merely as an afterthought because it was only in their appeal with the NLRC that they raised this defense.  The only defense raised by petitioners in their Answer with Counterclaim filed with the office of the Labor Arbiter is that private respondent was dismissed from employment by reason of desertion.[23]  Under the Rules of Court,[24] which is applicable in a suppletory character in labor cases before the Labor Arbiter or the NLRC pursuant to Section 3, Rule I of the New Rules of Procedure of the NLRC [25], defenses which are not raised either in a motion to dismiss or in the answer are deemed waived.[26]   Granting, for the sake of argument, that petitioners may use Section H (6), Part I of Memorandum Circular No. 41 or Section 19(C) of Memorandum Circular No. 055-96 as basis for terminating private respondent’s employment, it is clear that one of the conditions before any of these provisions becomes applicable is when the vessel arrives at a convenient port within a period of three (3) months before the expiration of the contract of employment.  In the present case, private respondent’s contract was executed onApril 10, 1996 for a duration of twelve months.  He was deployed aboard MV Cemtex General on June 25, 1996 and repatriated to the Philippines on August 22, 1996.  Hence, it is clear that petitioners did not meet this condition because private respondent’s termination was not within a period of three months before the expiration of his contract of employment.   Moreover, the Court finds nothing in the records to show that petitioners complied with the other conditions enumerated therein, such as the payment of all of private respondent’s earned wages together with his leave pay for the entire contract period as well as termination pay equivalent to his one month salary.   Petitioners admit that they did not inform private respondent in writing of the charges against him and that they failed to conduct a formal investigation to give him opportunity to air his side.  However, petitioners contend that the twin requirements of notice and hearing applies strictly only when the employment is within the Philippines and that these need not be strictly observed in cases of international maritime or overseas employment.