On September 18, 1992, respondent Santos moved for reconsideration of the aforequoted resolution. He argued that the case was not cognizable by the POEA as he was not an overseas contract worker.[21] On May 31, 1993, the NLRC granted the motion and reversed itself. The NLRC directed Labor Arbiter Emerson Tumanon to hear the case on the question of whether private respondent was retrenched or dismissed.[22] On January 13, 1994, Labor Arbiter Tumanon completed the proceedings based on the testimonial and documentary evidence presented to and heard by him. [23] Subsequently, Labor Arbiter Tumanon was re-assigned as trial arbiter of the National Capital Region, Arbitration Branch, and the case was transferred to Labor Arbiter Jose G. de Vera.[24] On November 25, 1994, Labor Arbiter de Vera submitted his report.[25] He found that respondent Santos was illegally dismissed from employment and recommended that he be paid actual damages equivalent to his salaries for the unexpired portion of his contract.[26] On December 15, 1994, the NLRC ruled in favor of private respondent, to wit: [27] WHEREFORE, finding that the report and recommendations of Arbiter de Vera are supported by substantial evidence, judgment is hereby rendered, directing the respondents to jointly and severally pay complainant the following computed contractual benefits: (1) US$12,600.00 as salaries for the un-expired portion of the parties contract; (2) US$3,600.00 as extra four (4) months salary for the two (2) years period (sic) of the parties contract; (3) US$3,600.00 as 14th month pay for the aforesaid two (2) years contract stipulated by the parties or a total of US$19,800.00 or its peso equivalent, plus (4) attorneys fees of 10% of complainants total award. SO ORDERED. On February 2, 1995, petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration arguing that Labor Arbiter de Veras recommendation had no basis in law and in fact. [28] On March 30, 1995, the NLRC denied the motion for reconsideration.[29] Hence, this petition.[30] On October 9, 1995, petitioners filed with this Court an urgent motion for the issuance of a temporary restraining order and/or writ of preliminary injunction and a motion for the annulment of the entry of judgment of the NLRC dated July 31, 1995. [31] On November 20, 1995, the Court denied petitioners urgent motion. The Court required respondents to file their respective comments, without giving due course to the petition.[32] On March 8, 1996, the Solicitor General filed a manifestation stating that after going over the petition and its annexes, they can not defend and sustain the position taken by