x x x x   It is clear from the above-quoted provision that what is included in the computation of the amount due to the overseas worker are only his salaries.   Allowances are excluded.  In the present case, since private respondent received a basic monthly salary of US$400.00, he is, therefore, entitled to receive a sum of US$1200.00, representing three months of said salary.   As to the awards of living allowance, overtime pay, vacation pay and special allowance, it is clearly provided under private respondent’s Contract of Employment that he is entitled to these benefits as follows: living allowance of US$140.00/month; vacation leave with pay equivalent to US$40.00/month; overtime rate of US$120.00/month; and, special allowance of US$175.00/month. [30]   With respect, however, to the award of overtime pay, the correct criterion in determining whether or not sailors are entitled to overtime pay is not whether they were on board and can not leave ship beyond the regular eight working hours a day, but whether they actually rendered service in excess of said number of hours. [31]  In the present case, the Court finds that private respondent is not entitled to overtime pay because he failed to present any evidence to prove that he rendered service in excess of the regular eight working hours a day.   On the basis of the foregoing, the remaining benefits to which the private respondent is entitled is the living allowance of US$140.00/month, which was removed in the computation of private respondent’s salary, special allowance of US$175.00/month and vacation leave with pay amounting to US$40.00/month. Since private respondent rendered service for two months these benefits should be doubled, giving a total of US$710.00.   As to the award of attorney’s fees, this Court ruled in Reyes v. Court of Appeals,[32] as follows:   x x x [T]here are two commonly accepted concepts of attorney's fees, the so-called ordinary and extraordinary.  In its ordinary concept, an attorney’s fee is the reasonable compensation paid to a lawyer by his client for the legal services he has rendered to the latter. The basis of this compensation is the fact of his