G.R. No. 167614 http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/march2009/167614.htm III Even without considering the constitutional limitations [of] Sec. 10 of Republic Act No. 8042, the Court of Appeals gravely erred in law in excluding from petitioners award the overtime pay and [28] vacation pay provided in his contract since under the contract they form part of his salary. On February 26, 2008, petitioner wrote the Court to withdraw his petition as he is already old and sickly, and he intends to make use of the monetary award for his medical treatment and [29] medication. Required to comment, counsel for petitioner filed a motion, urging the court to allow partial execution of the undisputed monetary award and, at the same time, praying that the [30] constitutional question be resolved. Considering that the parties have filed their respective memoranda, the Court now takes up the full merit of the petition mindful of the extreme importance of the constitutional question raised therein. On the first and second issues The unanimous finding of the LA, NLRC and CA that the dismissal of petitioner was illegal is not disputed. Likewise not disputed is the salary differential of US$45.00 awarded to petitioner in all three fora. What remains disputed is only the computation of the lump-sum salary to be awarded to petitioner by reason of his illegal dismissal. Applying the subject clause, the NLRC and the CA computed the lump-sum salary of petitioner at the monthly rate of US$1,400.00 covering the period of three months out of the unexpired portion of nine months and 23 days of his employment contract or a total of US$4,200.00. Impugning the constitutionality of the subject clause, petitioner contends that, in addition to the US$4,200.00 awarded by the NLRC and the CA, he is entitled to US$21,182.23 more or a total of US$25,382.23, equivalent to his salaries for the entire nine months and 23 days left of his employment [31] contract, computed at the monthly rate of US$2,590.00. The Arguments of Petitioner Petitioner contends that the subject clause is unconstitutional because it unduly impairs the freedom of OFWs to negotiate for and stipulate in their overseas employment contracts a determinate [32] It also impinges on the equal protection clause, for employment period and a fixed salary package. it treats OFWs differently from local Filipino workers (local workers) by putting a cap on the amount of lump-sum salary to which OFWs are entitled in case of illegal dismissal, while setting no limit to 6 of 33 1/26/2016 3:06 PM