4. WHETHER OR NOT PETITIONERS ARE ENTITLED TO THEIR MONEY CLAIMS.[47] The petitioners prayed, thus: WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed of this Honorable Court that this Petition be given due course and after its due consideration, REVERSE and SET ASIDE the Resolution of the public respondent National Labor Relations Commission dated March 29, 1999 and May 17, 1999 and a new one rendered REINSTATING the Decision of the Labor Arbiter Felipe P. Pati dated August 29, 1998 with modification for the reward of moral and exemplary damages. Petitioners further pray for such other reliefs and remedies deemed just and equitable in the premises. [48] On May 29, 2000, the CA rendered a decision partly granting the petition in that it nullified the March 29 and May 17, 1999 Resolutions of the NLRC and reinstated the decision of the labor arbiter with modification. The decretal portion of the decision reads: WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant petition is partly granted insofar as the public respondents Resolutions dated March 29, 1999 and May 17, 1999 are set aside and the labor arbiters Decision dated August 29, 1998 is reinstated with modification on the award of refunds for placement fees. The petitioners claims for moral and exemplary damages are denied for lack of merit. [49] The CA held that respondents Curameng, Bautista, Sarmiento and Guillermo were constructively dismissed, as the petitioner failed to substantiate its claim that the aforesaid petitioners voluntarily resigned from work. The CA also ruled that the repatriation of respondent Paramio was in violation of his employment contract. It declared that paragraph 8.2, Nos. 5 and 6, Article VIII of the said contract applied only to illnesses already existing and discovered during employment. The loss of ability to work under the contract could not be used as a ground for respondent Paramios termination because his thumb injury was workrelated. As to respondent Navarra, the CA ruled that his alleged confrontation with his supervisor did not amount to serious misconduct which would justify his dismissal. It stated that the deed of release executed by respondent Navarra barred him from instituting the said complaint. However, the CA agreed that the money he was able to collect from the petitioner by reason of the execution of a deed of release and quitclaim should be considered as an advance on the amount he was entitled to. Considering that the dismissal of the respondents was illegal, the petitioner, as the local agent of Kuan Yuan, was declared solidarily liable with the latter for the payment of the respondents salaries for the unexpired portion of their respective contracts and other awards, pursuant to Section 10, paragraph 2 of Rep. Act No. 8042.