4/29/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly [issues before it]."[31] On the Merits of the Case The core issue decided by the tribunals below is the validity of the respondents’ waivers and quitclaims. The CA set aside the NLRC ruling for grave abuse of discretion; the CA essentially found the waivers and quitclaims unreasonable and involuntarily executed, and could not have superseded the May 25, 2005 agreement. In doing so, and in giving weight to the May 25, 2005 agreement, the CA found justification under Section 10 of R.A. No. 8042. The respondents are not entitled to the unpaid portion of their salaries under Section 10 of R.A. No. 8042 The application of Section 10 of R.A. No. 8042 presumes a finding of illegal dismissal. The pertinent portion of Section 10 of R.A. No. 8042 reads: SEC. 10. MONEY CLAIMS. — x x x xxxx In case of termination of overseas employment without just, valid or authorized cause as defined by law or contract[.] [emphasis and italics ours] A plain reading of this provision readily shows that it applies only to cases of illegal dismissal or dismissal without any just, authorized or valid cause and finds no application in cases where the overseas Filipino worker was not illegally dismissed.[32] We found the occasion to apply this rule in International Management Services v. Logarta,[33] where we held that Section 10 of R.A. No. 8042 applies only to an illegally dismissed overseas contract worker or a worker dismissed from overseas employment without just, valid or authorized cause.[34] Whether the respondents in the present case were illegally dismissed is a question we resolve in the negative for three reasons. First, the respondents’ references to illegal dismissal in their several pleadings were mere cursory declarations rather than a definitive demand for redress. The LA’s May 2006 Decision clearly enunciated this point when she dismissed the respondents’ claim of illegal dismissal "as complainants themselves have lost interest to pursue the same." [35] Second, the respondents, in their motion for reconsideration filed before the NLRC, positively argued that the fishing operations for which they were hired ceased as a result of the business decision of Van Doorn and of its partners;[36] thus, negating by elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/55926 6/14