6/7/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly bears the peso sign when in fact the salaries of [respondent] were to be received in Korea. Furthermore, it appears that the vouchers were signed in one instance due to similarities as to how they were written. Despite the fact that We find the vouchers questionable, they prove that [respondent] was allowed to work beyond the effectivity of her visa. [Petitioners], wanting to prove that they paid [respondent's] salary, presented vouchers for the period starting October 2003 up to June 2004. It covers nine (9) months which implies that, despite having a visa good for six months, they consented to [respondent] working up to nine months. Otherwise, if they were against [respondent's] overstaying in Korea, they could have asked for her deportation earlier. Also, if [respondent] was misbehaving and went against their policy, they could have taken disciplinary action against her earlier. The "Magkasamang Sinumpaang Salaysay" of Ms. Tiatco and Ms. Flores, which was presented by [petitioners] to prove the alleged immoral acts of [respondent] and that they received their salaries on time, is self-serving and deserves scant weight as the affiants are beholden to [petitioners and SAENCO] from whom they depended their employment. We find as more credible [respondent's] allegations that she was made to believe that her contract was for one year and that her overstaying in Korea was with the consent of [petitioners and SAENCO], and that when she refused to surrender the 50% of her commission, that was the only time they questioned her stay and alleged that she committed immoral and illegal acts. Further, the zealousness of [respondent] in filing a case against [petitioners and SAENCO] in different government agencies for different causes of action manifests the intensity of her desire to seek justice for the sufferings she experienced. There is sufficient evidence to establish that [petitioners and SAENCO] misrepresented to [respondent] the details of her employment and that she was not paid her salaries. Hence, she is entitled to be paid her salaries for one year at the rate of $600 per month as this was what [petitioners and SAENCO] represented to her. For lack of proof, however, [respondent] is not entitled to her claim for overtime pay.[18] Based on the foregoing, the NLRC ruled: WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Decision of Labor Arbiter Antonio R. Macam dated 4 May 2006 is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE and a NEW ONE entered ordering [petitioners and SAENCO] to jointly and severally pay [respondent] her salaries for one year at a rate of $600 per month, or a elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/64155 7/27