fourteen (14) years less the amount he already received under the Company’s Disability Plan.               On the claim of 13th month pay, the respondent Agency not falling under the enumerated exempted employers under P.D. 851 and in the absence of any proof that respondent is already paying its employees a 13th month pay or more in a calendar year, perforce, respondent agency should pay complainant his monthly pay computed at [sic] the actual month [sic] worked, which is 8 months.               Since complainant was forced to litigate his case, he is hereby awarded 10% of the total award as attorney’s fees.               SO ORDERED.[8]              Esso and Trans-Global moved for the reconsideration of the 29 March 1999 Resolution.[9]  In its 27 July 1999 Resolution,[10]the NLRC denied their motion.            Esso, now using the name Petroleum Shipping Limited (“Petroleum Shipping”), and Trans-Global (collectively referred to as “petitioners”) filed a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals assailing the 29 March  1999 and 27 July 1999 Resolutions of the NLRC.   The Ruling of the Court of Appeals            In its Decision promulgated on 25 January 2001, the Court of Appeals affirmed in toto the 29 March 1999 Resolution of the NLRC.            The Court of Appeals ruled that Tanchico was a regular employee of Petroleum Shipping.  The Court of Appeals held that petitioners are not exempt from the coverage of Presidential Decree No. 851, as amended    (“PD 851”) [11]  which mandates the payment of 13th month pay to all employees.  The Court of Appeals further ruled that Tanchico is entitled to disability benefits based on his 14 years of tenure with petitioners.  The Court of Appeals stated that the employeremployee relationship subsisted even during the period of Tanchico’s vacation.  The Court of Appeals noted that petitioners were aware of Tanchico’s medical history yet they still deployed him for 14 years.  Finally, the Court of Appeals sustained the award of attorney’s fees.