deployment in Taiwan was approximately P100,000, more or less, the labor arbiter granted each of them a refund of their placement fee in the amount of P75,000.[41] Aggrieved, the petitioner appealed before the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), docketed as NLRC NCR CA 017927-99. It raised the following grounds: GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION, AND SERIOUS ERROR IN THE FINDING OF FACTS WHICH IF NOT CORRECTED WOULD CAUSE GRAVE AND IRREPARABLE DAMAGE TO THE RESPONDENT [42] The petitioner insisted that the dismissal of the complainants was anchored on valid and legal grounds; as such, the labor arbiter erred in ruling for the respondents and awarding a refund of their airfares, placement fees and payment of salaries for the unexpired portion of their respective contracts of employment. On March 29, 1999, the NLRC issued a resolution[43] finding that the respondents were legally dismissed and set aside the decision of the labor arbiter. The decretal portion of the decision reads as follows: WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Decision appealed from is hereby SET ASIDE and the instant case dismissed for lack of merit. [44] In reversing the decision of the labor arbiter, the NLRC made the following findings: (a) respondent Navarra did not refute the allegation of the petitioner that he had an altercation with his supervisor; (b) respondent Navarras execution of a deed of release and quitclaim released the petitioner from any or all liability on account of his repatriation; (c) the repatriation of complainant Paramio was sanctioned by Article VIII, paragraphs 5 and 6 of his employment contract; and, (d) the written documents executed by the remaining respondents showed that they voluntarily resigned from their employment. Dissatisfied, the respondents filed a motion for reconsideration[45] of the resolution, but the NLRC denied the motion in a Resolution dated May 17, 1999.[46] The respondents filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court against the petitioner before the Court of Appeals, docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 54744.The respondents (petitioners therein) raised the following issues: 1. WHETHER OR NOT THE PETITIONERS WERE ILLEGALLY DISMISSED WHEN THEY WERE REPATRIATED TO THE PHIL. BY THEIR TAIWAN EMPLOYER. 2. WHETHER OR NOT THE THUMB INJURY SUFFERED BY JOSEPH PARAMIO WHILE AT WORK [SHOULD] BE CONSIDERED A LEGAL GROUND FOR HIS REPATRIATION. 3. WHETHER OR NOT RONALD NAVARRAS REPATRIATION AND EXECUTION OF QUITCLAIM AND RECEIPT OF P49,000 BE SUFFICIENT GROUND TO CONCLUDE HIS WAIVER OF RIGHT AGAINST ILLEGAL DISMISSAL.