1/5/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly amount to gross and habitual neglect of duties to be a just cause for dismissal.[15] The NLRC clarified that poor performance does not necessarily equate to gross and habitual neglect of duties.[16] Respondents' Motion for Reconsideration[17] was denied in a Resolution[18] dated September 28, 2015. Unfazed, respondents elevated the matter to the CA via a Petition for Certiorari[19] under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. Ruling of the Court of Appeals On March 20, 2017, the CA affirmed the tribunal's finding of illegal dismissal. The CA also found a dearth of evidence to prove that petitioner's performance equated to gross and habitual neglect. However, the CA modified petitioner's monetary awards in order to conform to paragraph 5, Section 7 of Republic Act No. (R.A.) 10022.[20] Paragraph 5, Section 7 of R.A. 10022 states in part: In case of termination of overseas employment without just, valid or authorized cause as defined by law or contract, or any unauthorized deductions from the migrant worker's salary, the worker shall be entitled to the full reimbursement [of] his placement fee and the deductions made with interest at twelve percent (12%) per annum, plus his salaries for the unexpired portion of his employment contract or for three (3) months for every year of the unexpired term, whichever is less. Thus, the appellate court affirmed petitioner's entitlement to a refund of his placement fee with 12% annual legal interest but reduced the amount of his remaining salary to SR13,800, calculated as follows: Basic Salary SR 2,300.00 Multiplied by: Factor based on 17.5 unexpired term (equivalent to 3 months for 6 months every year of the unexpired term) Petitioner's remaining salary SR 13,800.00 The CA deleted petitioner's award of SR1,100.00 representing the excess airfare for petitioner's repatriation. The CA ruled that petitioner only presented his e-ticket, which did not indicate the amount petitioner paid. Attorney's fees were likewise deleted due to the LA's failure to explain the factual circumstances warranting such award. https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/65786 3/10