5/28/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly placement fees for lack of jurisdiction.[43] It refused to entertain the issue of the alleged transfer of obligations to Pacific.[44] It did not acquire jurisdiction over that issue because Sameer Overseas Placement Agency failed to appeal the Labor Arbiter’s decision not to rule on the matter.[45] The National Labor Relations Commission awarded respondent only three (3) months worth of salary in the amount of NT$46,080, the reimbursement of the NT$3,000 withheld from her, and attorney’s fees of NT$300.[46] The Commission denied the agency’s motion for reconsideration[47] dated May 12, 2004 through a resolution[48] dated July 2, 2004. Aggrieved by the ruling, Sameer Overseas Placement Agency caused the filing of a petition[49] for certiorari with the Court of Appeals assailing the National Labor Relations Commission’s resolutions dated March 31, 2004 and July 2, 2004. The Court of Appeals[50] affirmed the decision of the National Labor Relations Commission with respect to the finding of illegal dismissal, Joy’s entitlement to the equivalent of three months worth of salary, reimbursement of withheld repatriation expense, and attorney’s fees.[51] The Court of Appeals remanded the case to the National Labor Relations Commission to address the validity of petitioner's allegations against Pacific.[52] The Court of Appeals held, thus: Although the public respondent found the dismissal of the complainantrespondent illegal, we should point out that the NLRC merely awarded her three (3) months backwages or the amount of NT$46,080.00, which was based upon its finding that she was dismissed without due process, a finding that we uphold, given petitioner’s lack of worthwhile discussion upon the same in the proceedings below or before us. Likewise we sustain NLRC’s finding in regard to the reimbursement of her fare, which is squarely based on the law; as well as the award of attorney’s fees. But we do find it necessary to remand the instant case to the public respondent for further proceedings, for the purpose of addressing the validity or propriety of petitioner’s third-party complaint against the transferee agent or the Pacific Manpower & Management Services, Inc. and Lea G. Manabat. We should emphasize that as far as the decision of the NLRC on the claims of Joy Cabiles, is concerned, the same is hereby affirmed with finality, and we hold petitioner liable thereon, but without prejudice to further hearings on its third party complaint against Pacific for reimbursement. WHEREFORE, premises considered, the assailed Resolutions are hereby partly AFFIRMED in accordance with the foregoing discussion, but subject to the caveat embodied in the last sentence. No costs. elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/57319 3/39