8/26/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly Additionally, the National Labor Relations Commission deleted the award of financial assistance for lack of factual and legal bases.[22] Aldovino and her co-workers moved for reconsideration, but their Motion was denied for lack of merit in the National Labor Relations Commission August 31, 2010 Resolution. [23] Hence, they filed before the Court of Appeals a Petition for Certiorari.[24] In its September 29,2011 Decision,[25] the Court of Appeals reversed the labor tribunals' rulings. It not only ruled that Aldovino and her co-workers had been illegally dismissed from service, but also declared that the Compromise Agreement did not bar them from filing an illegal dismissal case.[26] Accordingly, the Court of Appeals ordered Gold and Green Manpower and Sage International to pay the workers their salaries "for the unexpired portion of their contract in accordance with Section 7 of [Republic Act No.] 10022[27] and pursuant to Serrano v. Gallant Maritime Services, Inc.,"[28] among others. The dispositive portion of the Court of Appeals Decision read: WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is hereby GRANTED. The Decision dated July 29,2010 and Order dated August 31, 2010 of the NLRC in NLRC LAC (OFW-L) 05-000409-10, are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Respondents Gold and Green Manpower Management and Development Services, Inc. and Sage International Development Co., Ltd. are hereby ordered to reimburse petitioners their placement fee with interest at twelve percent (12%) per annum, and to pay the salaries of petitioners for the unexpired portion of their respective employment contracts or for three (3) months for every year of the unexpired term, whichever is less. SO ORDERED.[29] Aldovino and her co-workers moved for partial reconsideration,[30] praying that the three (3)-month cap stated in the Decision's dispositive portion be annulled, pursuant to Serrano.[31] However, their Motion was denied in the Court of Appeals' January 26, 2012 Resolution.[32] Thus, Aldovino and her co-workers filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari.[33] On June 15, 2012, respondents filed their Comment,[34] to which petitioners filed a Reply on September 5, 2016.[35] Petitioners again question the three (3)-month salary cap stated in the dispositive portion of the Court of Appeals Decision. Citing Serrano, they assert that the three (3)month cap in Section 10 of Republic Act No. 8042, or the Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995, as reenacted in Republic Act No. 10022, has already been declared unconstitutional.[36] https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/65230 4/19