6/7/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly respondent pay the balance of the loan supposedly amounting to US$10,600.00. To dispute the loan, respondent engaged the legal services of Fortun, Narvasa & Salazar, a Philippine law firm, which managed to obtain copies of respondent's Employment Contract and Overseas Filipino Worker Information Sheet. It was only then when respondent discovered that her employment was just for six months and that her monthly compensation was US$600.00, not just US$400.00. Respondent further narrated that on June 13, 2004, petitioner Moldes went to South Korea and paid the salaries of all the performers, except respondent. Petitioner Moldes personally handed respondent a copy of the loan document for US$10,600.00 and demanded that respondent terminate the services of her legal counsel in the Philippines. When respondent refused to do as petitioner Moldes directed, petitioner Moldes withheld respondent's salary. On June 24, 2004, Park Sun Na (Park), President of SAENCO,[9] went to the club where respondent worked, dragged respondent outside, and brought respondent to his office in Seoul where he tried to intimidate respondent into apologizing to petitioner Moldes and dismissing her counsel in the Philippines. However, respondent did not relent. Subsequently, Park turned respondent over to the South Korean immigration authorities for deportation on the ground of overstaying in South Korea with an expired visa. It was only at that moment when respondent found out that petitioner Moldes did not renew her visa. Respondent filed the complaint against petitioners and SAENCO praying that a decision be rendered declaring them guilty of illegal dismissal and ordering them to pay her unpaid salaries for one year, inclusive of her salaries for the unexpired portion of her Employment Contract, backwages, moral and exemplary damages, and attorney's fees. Petitioners' Allegations Petitioners countered that respondent signed only one Employment Contract, and that respondent read its contents before affixing her signature on the same. Respondent understood that her Employment Contract was only for six months since she underwent the mandatory post-arrival briefing before the Philippine Labor Office in South Korea, during which, the details of her Employment Contract were explained to her. Respondent eventually completed the full term of her Employment Contract, which negated her claim that she was illegally dismissed. Petitioners additionally contended that respondent, on her own, extended her Employment Contract with SAENCO, and so petitioners' liability should not extend beyond the original six-month term of the Employment Contract because the extension was made without their participation or consent. Petitioners likewise averred that they received complaints that respondent violated the club policies of SAENCO against wearing skimpy and revealing dresses, dancing in a provocative and immoral manner, and going out with customers after working hours. Respondent was repatriated to the Philippines on account of her illegal or immoral activities. Petitioners also insisted that respondent's salaries were paid in full as evidenced by the nine cash vouchers[10] dated October 5, 2003 to June 5, 2004. Petitioners submitted the Magkasamang Sinumpaang Salaysay[11] of respondent's coelibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/64155 4/27