We should add that much more than being stylish, a decision or resolution, especially one resolving an appeal, should directly meet the issues for resolution; otherwise, the appeal would be pointless. It is immaterial that the NLRC is a quasi-judicial body and not a regular court. In any controversy, the appellant needs enlightenment on the issues that befuddle him. Accordingly, assuming that petitioner should indeed be liable to Macaraya, the NLRC should have discussed why Section 6, Rule I, Book III of the POEA Rules should be applied notwithstanding the factual circumstances pointed out by petitioner. As it was, petitioners theory that the case does not merit the application of Section 6, Rule I, Book III of the POEA Rules was merely glossed over, such that it was left with no other recourse but to file a motion for reconsideration and, after its denial, the instant petition. Worth stressing is the fact that petitioner does not question the validity of the monetary awards to Macaraya. The basic issue here is: As between petitioner and MARS, who should be held liable for such awards? This can only be resolved by interpreting Section 6, Rule I, Book III of the POEA Rules which states as follows: SEC. 6. Transfer of Accreditation. The accreditation of a principal or a project may be transferred to another agency provided that transfer shall not involve any diminution of wages and benefits of workers. The transferee agency in these instances shall comply with the requirements for accreditation and shall assume full and complete responsibility for all contractual obligations of the principals to its workers originally recruited and processed by the former agency. Prior to the transfer of accreditation, the Administration shall notify the previous agency and principal of such application. A cursory reading of this provision lends the impression that an accreditation transferee assumes the contractual responsibility of the transferor under all circumstances, without qualification. We find, however, that a strict application of said proviso in this case may result in a grave injustice to petitioner which became liable only when it stepped into the shoes, as it were, of its predecessor after the issues had been met in the illegal dismissal case filed against the latter, and after the POEA had failed to discharge its duty of deciding the simple illegal dismissal case with dispatch. The rule on transfer of accreditation was prescribed under the general policies of the POEA to establish the environment conducive to the continued operations of legitimate, responsible and professional private agencies and to afford protection to Filipino workers and their families, promote their interests and safeguard their welfare.xiii[13] In line with these policies, Book III of the same rules provides for the accreditation of a principal or any foreign person, partnership or corporation hiring Filipino workers through an agency.xiv[14] Principals may be accredited in this country only through licensed local agencies.xv[15] A land-based principal shall be accredited to only one agency but the POEA may grant accreditation to a second agent as may be deemed necessary.xvi[16] In the same manner, the accreditation of a principal may be transferred to another agency under the aforequoted Section 6, Rule I, Book III of the POEA Rules.