WHETHER OR NOT PUBLIC RESPONDENT COURT OF APPEALS ERRED AND/OR GRAVELY ABUSED ITS DISCRETION, AMOUNTING TO LACK OF JURISDICTION, IN TAKING COGNIZANCE OF THE PETITION FOR CERTIORARI FILED BY THE PRIVATE RESPONDENTS, DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE NLRC’S RESOLUTION OF DECEMBER 10, 2001 HAD ALREADY BECOME FINAL AND EXECUTORY, PRIVATE RESPONDENTS’ MOTION FOR PARTIAL RECONSIDERATION WITH THE NLRC HAVING BEEN FILED OUT OF TIME II ALTERNATIVELY, WHETHER OR NOT PUBLIC RESPONDENT COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN SETTING ASIDE THE RESOLUTIONS OF THE NLRC, AND IN DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT OF THE PETITIONERS.[19] Prefatorily, petitioners aver that private respondents’ Verification and Certification of the Petition for Certiorari stated that the copy of the resolution of the NLRC dated December 10, 2001 was received on January 4, 2002 and its partial motion for reconsideration filed on January 29, 2002, or 15 days beyond the reglementary period.  However, a perusal of the Partial Motion for Reconsideration[20] filed by private respondents show that the NLRC Resolution dated December 10, 2001 was in fact received by private respondents on January 24, 2002 and not on January 4, 2002.  Hence, the appeal was properly filed within the 10-day reglementary period.   In this petition the issue left for resolution is whether petitioners were illegally dismissed under Rep. Act No. 8042, thus entitling them to benefits plus damages.   The Labor Arbiter and the NLRC found that petitioners admitted they resigned from their jobs without force, coercion, intimidation and pressure from private respondents’ principal abroad.[21]    According to the Labor Arbiter, while it may be true that petitioners were not coerced into giving up their jobs, the deplorable, oppressive and sub-human working conditions drove petitioners to resign.  In effect, according to the Labor Arbiter, the petitioners did not voluntarily resign.[22]