It is noteworthy, however, that in the body of his decision, the labor arbiter applied Section 10 R.A. 8042,ii[2] the law relative to the protection of Filipino overseas-workers, and computed private respondents salary for the unexpired portion of his contract as follows: SR1,200 x 3 months = SR3,600. On appeal by petitioner, the NLRC affirmed the factual findings of the labor arbiter but modified the appealed decision by deleting the order of refund of excessive placement fee for lack of jurisdiction.iii[3] Petitioner moved for reconsideration with respect to the labor arbiters award of SR13,200 in the dispositive portion of the decision, representing respondents salary for the unexpired portion of his contract. invoking Section 10 R.A. 8042. Petitioner urged that its liability for respondents salary is for only three (3) months. Petitioner claimed that it should pay only SR 3.600 (SR 1,200 x 3 months) for the unexpired portion of respondents employment and SR360 (10% of SR3,600) for attorneys fees.iv[4] The NLRC denied petitioners motion. It ruled that R.A. 8042 does not apply as respondents employment which started in February 1995 occurred prior to its effectivity on July 15, 1995.v[5] Hence, this petition for certiorari. In the case at bar, petitioners illegal dismissal from service is no longer disputed. Petitioner merely impugns the monetary awards granted by the NLRC to private respondent. It submits that although the unexpired portion of private respondents employment contract is eight (8) months,vi[6] it is liable to pay respondent only three (3) months of his basic salary, pursuant to Section 10 of R.A. 8042, or SR1,200 (monthly salary) multiplied by 3 months, for a total of SR3,600. Petitioner claims that the NLRC erred in ruling that as private respondents employment started only on February 28, 1995, R.A. 8042, which took effect on July 15, 1995, would not apply to his case. Petitioner argues that it is not the date of employment but the date of dismissal which should be considered in determining the applicability of R.A. 8042. Petitioner prays that the award in the NLRC Decision dated October 14, 1997, be changed to SR3,600 instead of 13,200 and that the award of attorneys fees be deleted. We affirm with modifications. As a rule, jurisdiction is determined by the law at the time of the commencement of the action.vii[7] In the case at bar, private respondents cause of action did not accrue on the date of his date of his employment or on February 28, 1995. His cause of action arose only from thetime he was illegally dismissed by petitioner from service in June 1996, after his vacation leave expired. It is thus clear that R.A. 8042 which took effect a year earlier in July 1995 applies to the case at bar. Under Section 10 of R.A. 8042, a worker dismissed from overseas employment without just, valid or authorized cause is entitled to his salary for the unexpired portion of his employment contract or for three (3) months for every year of the unexpired term, whichever is less.