In the case at bar, the unexpired portion of private respondents employment contract is eight (8) months. Private respondent should therefore be paid his basic salary corresponding to three (3) months or a total of SR3,600.viii[8] We note that this same computation was made by the labor arbiter in the body of his decision.ix[9] Despite said computation in the body of the decision, however, the labor arbiter awarded higher sum (SR13,200) in the dispositive portion. The general rule is that where there is a conflict between the dispositive portion or the fallo and the body of the decision, the fallo controls. This rule rests on the theory that the fallo is the final order while the opinion in the body is merely a statement ordering nothing. However, where the inevitable conclusion from the body of the decision is so clear as to show that there was a mistake in the dispositive portion, the body of the decision will prevail.x[10] We find that the labor arbiters award of a higher amount in the dispositive portion was clearly an error for there is nothing in the text of the decision which support the award of said higher amount. We reiterate that the correct award to private respondent for the unexpired portion of his employment contract is SR3,600. We come now to the award of attorneys fees in favor of private respondent. Article 2208 of the Civil Code allows attorneys fees to be awarded when its claimant is compelled to litigate with third persons or to incur expenses to protect his interest by reason of an unjustified act or omission of the party for whom it is sought. Moreover, attorneys fees are recoverable when there is sufficient showing of bad faith.xi[11] The Labor Code,xii[12] on the other hand, fixes the attorneys fees that may be recovered in an amount which should not exceed 10% of the total amount of wages awarded. In the case at bar, petitioners bad faith in dismissing private respondent is manifest. Respondent was made to believe that he would be temporarily leaving Jeddah, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, for a 30-day vacation leave with pay. However, while on board the plane back to the Philippines, his co-employees told him that he has been dismissed from his job as he was given only a one-way plane ticket by petitioner. True enough, private respondent was not allowed to return to his jobsite in Jeddah after his vacation leave. Thus, private respondent was compelled to file an action for illegal dismissal with the labor arbiter and hence entitled to an award of attorneys fees. IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the decision of the public respondent National Labor Relations Commission, dated October 14, 1997, is AFFIRMED with modifications: petitioner is ordered to pay private respondent IBNO MEDIALES the peso equivalent of the amounts of SR3,600 for the unexpired portion of his employment contract, and SR360 for attorneys fees. No costs. SO ORDERED. Regalado,(Chairman), Melo, Mendoza, and Martinez, JJ., concur.