4/10/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly made available to parties who are involved in disputes before the agency, such as what the respondents filed with the POEA ahead (filed in 2007) of the illegal dismissal complaint before the NLRC (filed on March 5, 2008). Under the heading “Post-Deployment,” the agency agreed to pay Era[47] and Alcantara[48] P12,000.00 each, purportedly in satisfaction of the respondents’ claims arising from overseas employment, consisting of unpaid salaries, salary differentials and other benefits, including money claims with the NLRC. The last document was signed by (1) Anipan, (2) Lumanta, (3) Ladea, (4) Vinuya, (5) Jonathan Nangolinola, and (6) Zosimo Gatchalian (the last four signing on the left hand side of the document; the last two were not among those who filed the illegal dismissal complaint).[49] The agency agreed to pay them a total of P72,000.00. Although there was no breakdown of the entitlement for each of the six, but guided by the compromise agreement signed by Era and Alcantara, we believe that the agency paid them P12,000.00 each, just like Era and Alcantara. The uniform insubstantial amount for each of the signatories to the agreement lends credence to their contention that the settlement pertained only to their claim for refund of the airfare which they shouldered when they returned to the Philippines. The compromise agreement, apparently, was intended by the agency as a settlement with the respondents and others with similar claims, which explains the inclusion of the two (Nangolinola and Gatchalian) who were not involved in the case with the NLRC. Under the circumstances, we cannot see how the compromise agreements can be considered to have fully settled the respondents’ claims before the NLRC — illegal dismissal and monetary benefits arising from employment. We thus find no reversible error nor grave abuse of discretion in the rejection by the NLRC and the CA of said agreements. Fifth. The agency’s objection to the application of the Serrano ruling in the present case is of no moment. Its argument that the ruling cannot be given retroactive effect, because it is curative and remedial, is untenable. It points out, in this respect, that the respondents filed the complaint in 2007, while the Serrano ruling was handed down in March 2009. The issue, as the respondents correctly argue, has been resolved in Yap v. Thenamaris Ship’s Management,[50] where the Court sustained the retroactive application of the Serrano ruling which declared unconstitutional the subject clause in Section 10, paragraph 5 of R.A. 8042, limiting to three months the payment of salaries to illegally dismissed Overseas Filipino Workers. Undaunted, the agency posits that in any event, the Serrano ruling has been nullified by R.A. No. 10022, entitled “An Act Amending Republic Act No. 8042, Otherwise Known as the Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995, As Amended, Further Improving the Standard of Protection and Promotion of the Welfare of Migrant Workers, Their Families and Overseas Filipinos in Distress, and For Other Purposes.”[51] It argues that R.A. 10022, which lapsed into law (without the Signature of the President) on March 8, 2010, restored the subject clause in the 5th paragraph, Section 10 of R.A. 8042. The amendment, contained in Section 7 of R.A. 10022, reads as follows: elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/55155 11/15