require the presentation of payrolls, daily time records and similar documents before allowing claims for overtime pay, in this case, that would be requiring the near-impossible.    To our mind, it is private respondents who could have obtained the records of their principal to refute petitioners’ claim for overtime pay.  By their failure to do so, private respondents waived their defense and in effect admitted the allegations of the petitioners.    It is a time-honored rule that in controversies between a worker and his employer, doubts reasonably arising from theevidence, or in the interpretation of agreements and writing should be resolved in the worker’s favor.[28]  The policy is to extend the applicability of the decree to a greater number of employees who can avail of the benefits under the law, which is in consonance with the avowed policy of the State to give maximum aid and protection to labor.[29]  Accordingly, we rule that private respondents are solidarily liable with the foreign principal for the overtime pay claims of petitioners.   On the award of moral and exemplary damages, we hold that such award lacks legal basis.  Moral and exemplary damages are recoverable only where the dismissal of an employee was attended by bad faith or fraud, or constituted an act oppressive to labor, or was done in a manner contrary to morals, good customs or public policy.[30]  The person claiming moral damages must prove the existence of bad faith by clear and convincing evidence, for the law always presumes good faith.[31]  Petitioners allege they suffered humiliation, sleepless nights and mental anguish, thinking how they would pay the money they borrowed for their placement fees.[32]  Even so, they failed to prove bad faith, fraud or ill motive on the part of private respondents.[33]  Moral damages cannot be awarded.  Without the award of moral damages, there can be no award of exemplary damages, nor attorney’s fees.[34]   Quitclaims executed by the employees are commonly frowned upon as contrary to public policy and ineffective to bar claims for the full measure of the workers’ legal rights, considering the economic disadvantage of the employee and the inevitable pressure upon him by financial necessity.[35]  Nonetheless, the socalled “economic difficulties and financial crises” allegedly confronting the