petitioner contended that the respondents were not entitled to a refund of their plane fare.[37] With respect to the claims for tax refund for amounts withheld by their employer, the petitioner averred that the respondents were not entitled thereto, as the law ofTaiwan mandated such withholding of taxes. If, indeed, the respondents were entitled to a refund of the said taxes, the same should be coursed through the Bureau of Internal Revenue, the appropriate governmental agency.[38] On October 29, 1998, Labor Arbiter Felipe P. Pati rendered a decision declaring that the dismissal of the respondents was illegal. The dispositive portion states, thus: WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered declaring complainants dismissal to be illegal and respondents are ordered to pay to complainants as follows: 1. Ronald Navarra NT$46,080 or its peso equivalent; P75,000.00 refund of placement fee; and P4,300 refund of plane fare less P49,000. 2. Recto Guillermo NT$15,360 or its peso equivalent; P75,000.00 refund of placement fee; and P4,300 refund of air fare. 3. Joseph Paramio NT$46,080 or its peso equivalent; P75,000.00 refund of placement fee; and P4,300 refund air fare. 4. Apolinario Curameng, Jr. NT$23,040 or its peso equivalent; P75,000 refund of placement fee and P4,300 refund of air fare. 5. Ferdinand Bautista NT$46,080 or its peso equivalent; P75,000.00 refund of placement fee; and P4,300 refund of air fare; and 6. Romel Sarmiento NT$ or its peso equivalent P75,000.00 refund of placement fee; and P4,300 refund of air fare. The claim for tax refund is dismissed for not having been substantiated. [39] In declaring respondent Navarras dismissal illegal, the labor arbiter held that the petitioner failed to substantiate its claim that the said respondent had an altercation with his supervisor. As such, respondent Navarra was entitled to the payment of the salaries due him for the unexpired portion of his contract, subject to the deduction of the amount already advanced to him under the deed of release and quitclaim he had executed in favor of the petitioner.[40] The labor arbiter likewise ruled that the dismissal of complainant Paramio was illegal. Considering that he had a thumb injury, his employer should have given him a lighter job instead of repatriating him. The dismissal of the remaining complainants was also adjudged illegal. According to the labor arbiter, the petitioners defense that its employees (respondents) voluntarily resigned deserved scant consideration. Considering that the dismissal of the respondents was illegal, the labor arbiter awarded the salaries due them for the unexpired portion of their contracts, as well as the refund of their plane fare. Recognizing that the usual placement fee of workers for