6/5/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly The CA also ruled that the educational attainment of respondent should not be taken against her, because she only signed the Quitclaim and Release by force of necessity, for she was in dire need of money.[74] The appellate court observed that while respondent accepted the offer of President Kassa to work at the Internal Audit Department, such arrangement was in the purview of a new contract of employment.[75] A new contract was invalid without the approval of the POEA. According to the CA, Alemaya University was also guilty of substitution of contracts when it required respondent to sign a second contract upon her arrival in Ethiopia, and when it attempted in vain to have her sign a third contract demoting her in rank and lowering her salary.[76] Considering that a representative of the Ethiopian government went to the Philippines to screen respondent and check her qualifications, the review of her credentials in Ethiopia was "truly mind boggling."[77] As regards the appeal bond before the NLRC, the CA ruled that since petitioner's check payment was encashed only after the reglementary period within which to appeal, the appeal was considered to have been filed out of time.[78] According to the CA, the rules provide that only a cash or surety bond may be considered as appeal bond, and noncompliance with the rule was fatal to petitioner's cause. Petitioner provided the plane ticket from Addis Ababa to the Philippines. However, it did not reimburse the airfare of respondent from Dire Dawa, her place of work, to Addis Ababa. Thus, the CA ordered a reimbursement of the airfare for the latter route, but did not allow the claim for hotel accommodations for lack of sufficient evidence.[79] After its Motion for Reconsideration[80] was denied in the challenged Resolution[81] dated 24 August 2009, petitioner filed the instant petition before us. Issues 1. Whether respondent was illegally dismissed 2. Whether the Quitclaim and Release was valid 3. Whether petitioner's appeal was perfected on time Our Ruling Mode of Review The instant petition is one for review of the CA Decision issued under a petition for certiorari, in which the CA found that the NLRC had committed grave abuse of discretion when the latter upheld the validity of the Quitclaim and Release. As in Montoya v. Trammed Manila Corp.,[82] we shall examine in the instant Rule 45 petition the correctness of the Rule 65 decision rendered by the CA by answering this question: Did the CA correctly determine whether the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/60760 8/20