G.R. No. 167614 http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/march2009/167614.htm 2. Salary differential 45.00 US$4,245.00 3. 10% Attorneys fees 424.50 TOTAL US$4,669.50 The other findings are affirmed. [19] SO ORDERED. The NLRC corrected the LA's computation of the lump-sum salary awarded to petitioner by reducing the applicable salary rate from US$2,590.00 to US$1,400.00 because R.A. No. 8042 does not provide for the award of overtime pay, which should be proven to have been actually performed, [20] and for vacation leave pay. Petitioner filed a Motion for Partial Reconsideration, but this time he questioned the [21] [22] The NLRC denied the motion. constitutionality of the subject clause. [23] Petitioner filed a Petition for Certiorari with the CA, reiterating the constitutional challenge [24] against the subject clause. After initially dismissing the petition on a technicality, the CA eventually gave due course to it, as directed by this Court in its Resolution dated August 7, 2003 which granted the petition for certiorari, docketed as G.R. No. 151833, filed by petitioner. In a Decision dated December 8, 2004, the CA affirmed the NLRC ruling on the reduction of the applicable salary rate; however, the CA skirted the constitutional issue raised by petitioner.[25] His Motion for Reconsideration[26] having been denied by the CA,[27] petitioner brings his cause to this Court on the following grounds: I The Court of Appeals and the labor tribunals have decided the case in a way not in accord with applicable decision of the Supreme Court involving similar issue of granting unto the migrant worker back wages equal to the unexpired portion of his contract of employment instead of limiting it to three (3) months II In the alternative that the Court of Appeals and the Labor Tribunals were merely applying their interpretation of Section 10 of Republic Act No. 8042, it is submitted that the Court of Appeals gravely erred in law when it failed to discharge its judicial duty to decide questions of substance not theretofore determined by the Honorable Supreme Court, particularly, the constitutional issues raised by the petitioner on the constitutionality of said law, which unreasonably, unfairly and arbitrarily limits payment of the award for back wages of overseas workers to three (3) months. 5 of 33 1/26/2016 3:06 PM