6/7/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly actuations, respondent does not appear to be totally helpless and gullible. Respondent, in fact, was quite zealous in protecting her rights, hiring one of the well-known law firms in the Philippines to represent her against petitioner Moldes who was demanding payment of a loan which respondent insisted was fictitious. Respondent also stood up to and refused to given in to the demands of both petitioner Moldes and Park even during face-to-face confrontations. The Court then cannot believe that respondent would simply sign the nine cash vouchers even when she did not receive the corresponding salaries for the same. Respondent failed to establish that the passbook she submitted was for her bank account for payroll payments from SAENCO; it could very well just be her personal bank account to which she had not made any deposit. The Court, unlike the Court of Appeals, is not ready to jump to the conclusion that the vouchers were all prepared on the same occasion and disregard their evidentiary value simply based on their physical appearance and in the total absence of any corroborating evidence. Nonetheless, pursuant to the fifth paragraph of Section 10 of Republic Act No. 8042, respondent is entitled to an award of her salaries for the unexpired three months of her extended Employment Contract, i.e., July to September 2004.[51] Given that respondent's monthly salary was US$600.00, petitioners and SAENCO shall pay respondent a total of US$1,800.00 for the remaining three months of her extended Employment Contract. The said amount, similar to backwages, is subject to legal interest of 12% per annum from respondent's illegal dismissal in June 2004 to June 30, 2013 and 6% per annum from July 1, 2013 to the date this Decision becomes final and executory.[52] Respondent also has the right to the reimbursement of her placement fee with interest of 12% per annum from her illegal dismissal in June 2004 to the date this Decision becomes final and executory.[53] Moreover, the award of attorney's fees to respondent is likewise justified. It is settled that in actions for recovery of wages or where an employee was forced to litigate and incur expenses to protect his/her right and interest, he/she is entitled to an award of attorney's fees equivalent to 10% of the award.[54] Finally, all of the foregoing monetary awards in respondent's favor shall earn legal interest of 6% per annum from the time this Decision becomes final and executory until fully satisfied.[55] In an attempt to escape any liability to respondent, petitioners assert that only SAENCO should be answerable for respondent's illegal dismissal because petitioners were not privy to the extension of respondent's Employment Contract beyond the original six-month period. Petitioner Moldes additionally argues that she should not be held personally liable as a corporate officer of PTCPI without evidence that she had acted with malice or bad faith. Petitioners' arguments are untenable considering the explicit language of the second paragraph of Section 10 of Republic Act No. 8042, reproduced below for easier reference: elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/64155 23/27