3/31/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly IN VIEW THEREOF, judgment is hereby rendered directing the AL MASIYA OVERSEAS PLACEMENT AGENCY, INC. and ROSALINA ABOY to jointly and severally pay the complainant: 1) Salary Differentials 2) Six (6) months['] Salary for the unexpired portion of her contract 3) Moral damages 4) Exemplary damages - US$516.75 - US$2,400.00 - P25,000.00 - P25,000.00 plus 10% as attorney's fees payable to the Public Attorney's Office. SO ORDERED.[22] Petitioners appealed the above Decision to the NLRC. In its Decision[23] dated April 27, 2012, the NLRC dismissed the appeal on the ground of nonperfection. It observed that petitioners filed a surety bond equivalent to the monetary award, but the attached joint declaration, as required by the 2011 NLRC Rules of Procedure, was not duly signed by their counsel.[24] Petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration[25] of the dismissal of their appeal. The NLRC granted the motion in its Resolution[26] dated September 24, 2012, and gave due course to petitioners] appeal. Nonetheless, the NLRC affirmed in toto the Decision of the LA.[27] Subsequently, petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration[28] of the Resolution dated September 24, 2012, but the NLRC dismissed it for lack of merit in its Resolution[29] dated November 26, 2012. Aggrieved, petitioners filed a Petition for Certiorari with Extremely Urgent Prayer for the Issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order and/or Preliminary Injunction[30] with the CA. In its Decision[31] dated June 27, 2014, the CA dismissed the petition for lack of merit. It upheld respondent's entitlement to her money claims, which were granted by the LA and affirmed by the NLRC. The LA held that an employee's execution of a document on final settlement does not foreclose the right to pursue a claim for illegal dismissal; and that quitclaims are frowned upon and do not bind courts unless proven to have been voluntarily executed.[32] The CA also found illogical petitioners' argument that respondent voluntarily resigned from her job abroad.[33] On the contrary, the CA observed that respondent would not have pursued her suit if she did resign.[34] On December 23, 2014, the CA issued a Resolution[35] denying petitioners' motion for reconsideration.[36] Hence, the present petition. https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/65972 3/12