4/9/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly which we fixed at one month pay. The granted claims are computed as follows: US$670 x 4 months US$ 2,680.00 WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered ordering the respondent Bright Maritime Corporation to pay the complainant Ricardo Fantonial the peso equivalent at the time of actual payment of US$ 2,680.00. The other claims and the case against respondent Desiree P. Tenorio are dismissed for lack of merit.[8] Petitioners appealed the decision of the Labor Arbiter to the NLRC. On May 31, 2001, the NLRC, Fourth Division, rendered a Decision[9] reversing the decision of the Labor Arbiter. The dispositive portion of the NLRC decision reads: WHEREFORE, premises considered, the decision of Labor Arbiter Ernesto F. Carreon, dated 25 September 2000, is SET ASIDE and a new one is entered DISMISSING the complaint of the complainant for lack of merit. SO ORDERED.[10] The NLRC held that the affidavit of Dr. Lyn dela Cruz-De Leon proved that respondent was declared fit to work only on January 21, 2000, when the vessel was no longer at the port of Germany. Hence, respondent's failure to depart on January 17, 2000 to join the vessel M/V AUK in Germany was due to respondent's health. The NLRC stated that as a recruitment agency, petitioner BMC has to protect its name and goodwill, so that it must ensure that an applicant for employment abroad is both technically equipped and physically fit because a labor contract affects public interest. Moreover, the NLRC stated that the Labor Arbiter's decision ordering petitioners to refund respondent's placement fee and other actual expenses, which was fixed at one month pay in the amount of US$670.00, does not have any bases in law, because in the deployment of seafarers, the manning agency does not ask the applicant for a placement fee. Hence, respondent is not entitled to the said amount. Respondent filed a motion for reconsideration of the NLRC decision, which motion was denied in a Resolution[11] dated July 23, 2001. Respondent filed a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals, alleging that the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in rendering the Decision dated May 31, 2001and the Resolution dated July 23, 2001. elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/21705 4/12