6/7/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly workers, Sheila Marie V. Tiatco (Tiatco) and Carolina Flores (Flores), who confirmed that respondent violated the club policies of SAENCO and that respondent received her salaries. Petitioners submitted as well the Sworn Statement[12] dated November 9, 2004 of Baltazar D. Fuentes (Baltazar), respondent's husband, to prove that respondent obtained a loan from petitioner PTCPI. Baltazar affirmed that petitioner PTCPI lent them some money which respondent used for her job application, training, and processing of documents so that she could work abroad. A portion of the loan proceeds was also used to pay for their land in Lagrimas Village, Tiaong, Quezon, and respondent's other personal expenses. Petitioner Moldes, for her part, disavowed personal liability, stating that she merely acted in her capacity as a corporate officer of petitioner PTCPI. Petitioners thus prayed that the complaint against them be dismissed and that respondent be ordered to pay them moral and exemplary damages for their besmirched reputation, and attorney's fees for they were compelled to litigate and defend their interests against respondent's baseless suit. Labor Arbiter's Ruling On May 4, 2006, Labor Arbiter Antonio R. Macam rendered a Decision[13] dismissing respondent's complaint, based on the following findings: The facts of the case and the documentary evidence submitted by both parties would show that herein [respondent] was not illegally dismissed. This Office has noted that the POEA approved contract declares that the duration of [respondent's] employment was for six (6) months only. The fact that the duration of [respondent's] employment was for six (6) months only is substantiated by the documentary evidence submitted by both parties. Attached is [respondent's] Position Paper as Annex "D" is a Model Employment Contract for Filipino Overseas Performing Artist to Korea signed by the parties and approved by the POEA. Also attached to the Position Paper of the [petitioners] as Annex "1" is a copy of the Employment Contract signed by the parties and approved by POEA. We readily noted that the common evidence submitted by the parties would prove that [respondent's] employment was for six (6) months only. The deploying agency, Princess. Talent Center Production, Inc. processed the [respondent] for a six-month contract only and there is no showing that the deploying agency participated in the extension of the contract made by the [respondent] herself. There is likewise no evidence on record which would show that the POEA approved such an extension. As matters now stand, this Office has no choice but to honor the six months duration of the contract as approved by the POEA. The conclusion therefore is that the [respondent] was not illegally dismissed since she was able to finish the duration of the contract as approved by the POEA. elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/64155 5/27