SO ORDERED. [12] On appeal, the NLRC affirmed the Labor Arbiter’s Decision with modification. It reduced the vacation leave pay awarded to Cuesta from US$175 to US$75. Thus: We sustain the Labor Arbiter’s conclusion that the Letters of Indemnity were valid. Even complainants admit that said letter of indemnity were confirmed by representative of ITF. Hence, the presumption of regularity of the Letter of Indemnity must be considered in respondent’s favor. However, the award of vacation pay must be corrected. The contract show that Cuesta is only entitled to $75.00 vacation pay and not $175.00 as awarded.... Respondent’s prayer for attorney’s fees and litigation expenses must fail in view of lack of evidence showing bad faith on part of complainants. WHEREFORE, the appealed Decision is hereby MODIFIED in that the award of vacation leave in favor of complainant Cuesta must be reduced to seventy five dollars only ($75). SO ORDERED. [13] Aggrieved, respondents filed a motion for reconsideration, which the NLRC denied for lack of merit. Thus, respondents filed with the Court of Appeals a special civil action for certiorari, alleging that grave abuse of discretion was committed by the NLRC. In its assailed Decision, the Court of Appeals set aside the questioned Decision and Resolution of the NLRC. The dispositive part of the appellate court’s Decision reads: WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The assailed Decision of the Labor Arbiter, dated August 18, 1999 and the Decision and Resolution of the National Labor Relations Commission, respectively dated June 30, 2000 and July 31, 2000, are hereby ANNULLED and SET ASIDE. A new judgment is hereby entered DECLARING the subject “Letters of Indemnity”, dated January 23, 1999, to be VOID AND WITHOUT ANY LEGAL EFFECT. Petitioners, FELICISIMO S. CUESTA and WILFREDO B. GONZAGA, are furthermore DECLARED to