6/5/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly The labor arbiter also ruled that the protest of respondent and her colleagues before the Ministry of Education, as well as the question of whether she was the leader of that protest, should not be taken against her. The labor arbiter ruled that respondent had simply acted based on her right to protest changes in her contract.[47] The labor arbiter gave no credence either to the allegation that respondent was dismissed for incompetence based on the students' petition. It was noted that the petition only came out after she was fired by Vice President Alamirew during the meeting.[48] Furthermore, the alleged petition contained double signatures and signatures of students not included in the class list. In the end, the labor arbiter found that respondent had been constructively dismissed. She was supposedly forced to quit because continued employment became unbearable, not only due to demotion in rank and diminution in pay, but also due to the discrimination and disdain on the part of her employer.[49] Further, no procedural due process was accorded to respondent because no panel of her peers was ever formed to review her performance.[50] The only basis for the charge of unsatisfactory teaching was the alleged students' petition, which was found to be questionable. The labor arbiter also declared that the Quitclaim and Release could not work to bar the claims of respondent, because when compared to the amount that she was entitled to receive under Section 10[51] of Republic Act No. (R.A.) 8042 (Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995), the amount of USD 900 was unreasonable and prejudicial to her.[52] According to the labor arbiter, respondent was also entitled to moral damages in view of the verbal abuse she received during the meeting and the resulting humiliation.[53] The exemplary damages were awarded in order to deter others from emulating the acts of petitioner and Alemaya University.[54] Petitioner filed an appeal before the NLRC.[55] For her part, respondent filed before the NLRC a pleading entitled "Omnibus Motion,"[56] which was divided into three parts. In her Motion to Dismiss Appeal, respondent indicated that petitioner had received a copy of the Decision of the labor arbiter on 13 April 2007, giving it a period until 23 April 2007 within which to perfect its appeal.[57] When petitioner filed its memorandum of appeal on 20 April 2007, it issued a check as payment for the appeal bond. The check was presented for payment only on 23 April 2007. Considering that it takes three days for checks to clear - and that checks only produce the effect of payment when they have been cashed - the appeal bond was posted beyond the 10-day reglementary period.[58] Hence, according to respondent, petitioner's appeal was not perfected, and the labor arbiter's ruling had attained finality.[59] In the Motion to Deny Due Course for Lack of Merit, respondent gave her counterarguments on the allegations of petitioner in the latter's appeal. elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/60760 6/20