4/15/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly benefits of Manuel from June 2013, the start of his employment, up to the whole month of September 2013, unpaid. While the respondents presented documents showing payment of Manuel's wages for the months prior to October 2013, the same did not reflect that the same were in fact payments for Manuel's guaranteed overtime pay, leave pay, daily allowance/subsistence allowance and owner's bonus for June 2013, until the end of September 2013. Petitioner insists that respondents' bad faith had been duly established by the following circumstances - (a) concealment and refusal to furnish the petitioner with a copy of the CBA in order to mislead Manuel and his widow, petitioner herein, into thinking that no CBA applied to the former; (b) suppression of Police Investigation Report which could have shown that Manuel had been killed; (c) failure to procure the mandatory life insurance policy for Manuel and refusal to pay the life insurance benefit thereunder; (d) refusal to provide any form of assistance to Manuel's next of kin when his remains were repatriated; (e) withholding of Manuel's last earned salary unless a quitclaim is signed by the petitioner freeing respondents from liability arising out of her husband's death; (f) eventual release of the said last earned salary only after five long months from the death of Manuel; (g) berating petitioner for seeking the Government's help in the repatriation of Manuel; and (h) the sudden decision to bring Manuel's remains to Galle, Sri Lanka despite the fact that the ship's destination is Dammam, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia - all justify the award in her favor of moral and exemplary damages. Furthermore, their unjustified refusal to grant her legitimate claims compelled her to litigate, therefore, entitles her to attorney's fees. Respondents, for their part, averred that the petitioner should stop her insatiable quest for financial gain as the CA only removed the highly questionable benefits she had been awarded by the Panel but retained the US$89,100.00 death benefits and P162,080.00 transportation and burial expenses awarded in her favor, and which amounts they no longer contest.[54] Contrary to petitioner's supposition on forum shopping, respondents contend that their recourse had been valid and legally justifiable. There is nothing in their Manifestation with Opposition that would even suggest that the same was a second motion for reconsideration. Respondents explain that their "Manifestation" merely expressed their displeasure with the violation of their right to due process, while their "Opposition" conveyed their disapproval to petitioner's motion for the execution of the assailed Decision rendered by the Panel. It is inconsequential that respondents also pray for the reversal of the decision of the Panel in the said pleading. It must be taken into account that the petitioner moved for the execution of the Panel's Decision on the very same day the Panel denied respondents' Motion for Reconsideration with Urgent Motion for Clarificatory Conference.[55] It is precisely for that reason why they filed a "Manifestation" with an "Opposition." Respondents add that it is very unlikely that conflicting decisions will arise given that what was pending before the NCMB is petitioner's motion for execution and not any of respondents' motion.[56] Respondents assert that they timely moved for the reconsideration of the Panel's Decision. Contrary to the contention of the petitioner, the Panel is bound by the provisions of the Civil Code and the Rules of Court pertaining to the computation of the period within which an act must be performed. Following Section 1, Rule 22 of the https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/66237 11/37