the total amount credited to his account will be distributed to him (or his eligible survivor/s); (b) that when an employee voluntarily terminates his employment (regardless of the reason) no distribution of any portion of the employees account will ever be made to him (or to his eligible survivor/s); and, (c) that when the termination is for a reason other than retirement, death or permanent and total disability, without any misconduct on his part, he shall be entitled to 50% (for 36 months credited service), 75% (48 months) and 100% (60 months) of the total amount credited to his account. The CEIP, further, provides that when the employment is terminated due to his poor performance, misconduct, unavailability, etc., or if the employee is not offered reengagement for similar reasons, no distribution of any portion of the employees account will ever be made to him. Maniks As discussed above, petitioners did not voluntarily terminate their employment with private respondents. They merely expressed their desire to avail of the optional early retirement plan in the mistaken belief that such plan existed and that they would still receive the benefits due them under the CEIP. Neither were they dismissed for any of the causes, i.e., poor performance, misconduct, unavailability, etc., which would result in forfeiture of the aforesaid retirement benefits. Rather, their dismissal was without just cause and, therefore, deemed illegal under the law. Hence, having been in the employ of private respondents for a good 20 years or 240 months, petitioners are entitled to the retirement benefits under Section III, paragraph (c) of the CEIP.27[27] Anent petitioner Millares contention that he is entitled to an award of actual damages in the amount of P770,000.00, we find the same to be bereft of merit. Actual or compensatory damages is the term used for compensation for pecuniary loss - in trade, business, property, profession, job or occupation. The same must be proved, otherwise, if the proof is flimsy and unsubstantiated, no damages will be given.28[28] Petitioner Millares failed to substantiate his claim that the placing of his name on the POEA watchlist cost him his new job with NAESS Shipping Corporation and that he incurred losses in the sum of P770,000.00. On the contrary, private respondents, despite their admission that the placing of petitioner Millares name on the watchlist was a mistake, were able to prove that he was able to leave the Philippines notwithstanding such mistake. Finally, on the issue of whether or not private respondents are liable to pay moral and exemplary damages, attorneys fees and costs, the Court rules in the negative. The records reveal that petitioners failed to establish that they suffered diverse injuries such as mental anguish, besmirched reputation, wounded feelings and social humiliation on account of private respondents wrongful act or omission such as to entitle them to an award of moral damages under the Civil Code. The award of moral damages cannot be 27[27] supra. 28[28] Rubio vs. Court of Appeals, 141 SCRA 488 (1986)