3/31/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly the minimum employment period clause.[29] Notably, she committed to abide thereby in exchange for the expenses incurred by the company for her training as Network Engineer. As correctly ruled by the NLRC: There is basis to [petitioners'] claim that [respondent] is "liable to pay the employment bond, in the sum of Eighty Thousand Pesos (P80,000.00)". [Respondent] did not dispute the Minimum Employment Length provision in her contract which reads : xxx xxx xxx Except for claiming that the matter of refund was raised for the first time on appeal, (respondent] did not dispute the existence and validity of such provision in her employment contract, a contract which she voluntarily entered into, fully understanding its meaning and repercussions . It should be stated that contrary to [respondent's] argument, this claim was already ventilated in the proceedings before the Labor Arbiter, as stated in their Position Paper.[30] (emphasis supplied) Surely, while petitioners are liable to respondent for her illegal suspension and unpaid money claims , respondent, too, is liable to petitioners for payment of the "employment bond." As such, the NLRC correctly ordered the offsetting of their respective money claims against each other. To rule otherwise would be "to sanction split jurisdiction, which is prejudicial to the orderly administration of justice."[31] So must it be. ACCORDINGLY, the petition is GRANTED. The Decision dated July 8, 2015 and Resolution dated January 12, 2016 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 134623 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE, and the Resolution of the National Labor Relations Commission dated October 21, 2013 in NLRC NCR CN. 09-14294-11 and NLRC LAC NO. 11-003168-12 , REINSTATED. SO ORDERED. Peralta, C.J., (Chairperson), Caguioa, Reyes, J., Jr. and Lopez, JJ., concur. [1] Penned by Associate Justice Agnes Reyes-Carpio with Associate Justices Francisco P . Acosta and Victoria Isabel A. Paredes, concurring , rollo, pp. 27-34. [2] Rollo, pp. 36-37. [3] Id. at 207. [4] Id. at 39 . https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/66004 7/9