6/7/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly rights and interests, a maximum often percent (10%) of the total monetary award by way of attorney's fees is justified under Article 111 of the Labor Code, Section 8, Rule VIII, Book III of its Implementing Rules, and paragraph 7, Article 2208 of the Civil Code.[29] (Citations omitted.) The dispositive portion of the judgment of the appellate court reads: WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant petition for is hereby GRANTED. The assailed Resolutions of public respondent NLRC, First Division, dated November 11, 2008 and January 30, 2009 are ANNULLED AND SET ASIDE. Accordingly, [petitioner PTCPI, SAENCO, and petitioner Moldes] are ORDERED to jointly and severally pay [respondent's] unpaid salaries for one (1) year at a rate of US$600.00 per month or a total of US$7,200.00. In addition, [petitioners and SAENCO] are ORDERED to jointly and severally pay [respondent] attorney's fees equivalent to ten percent (10%) of the total monetary award.[30] The Motion for Reconsideration[31] of petitioners was denied by the Court of Appeals in a Resolution dated February 16, 2010 because the issues raised therein were already judiciously evaluated and passed upon by the appellate court in its previous Decision, and there was no compelling reason to modify or reverse the same. II THE RULING OF THE COURT Petitioners filed the instant Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court assigning a sole error on the part of the Court of Appeals: The Honorable Court of Appeals erred and abused its action when it ruled that private respondent is entitled to recover from the petitioners her alleged unpaid salaries during her employment in South Korea despite of (sic) the abundance of proof that she was fully paid of (sic) her salaries while working as [an] overseas contract worker in South Korea.[32] Petitioners maintain that respondent initially worked at Siheung Tourist Hotel Night Club (Siheung Night Club). After completing her six-month employment contract in Siheung Night Club, respondent decided to continue working at Ulsan Seaman's Seven Pub without the consent of petitioners. Throughout her employment in South Korea, respondent's salaries were paid as evidenced by the cash vouchers and Entertainer Wage Roster,[33] which were signed by respondent and attached to the "Reply"[34] dated January 11, 2010 of Park, Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of SAENCO, duly notarized per the Certificate of Authentication[35] dated January 25, 2010 issued by Consul General Sylvia M. Marasigan of the Philippine Embassy in Seoul, South Korea and the Notarial Certificate of Sang Rock Law and Notary Office, Inc.[36] Petitioners contend that respondent totally failed to discharge the burden of proving nonpayment of her salaries, yet, the Court of Appeals still ordered petitioners to pay the same on the basis of respondent's bare allegations. elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/64155 14/27