3/31/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly letter were unfounded.[9] On the other hand, petitioners maintained that respondent was validly placed under preventive suspension for willful disregard of company directives and loitering on work hours. Petitioners, though, admitted respondent was entitled to tax refund and the proportionate monetary equivalent of her vacation leaves and 13th month pay. All other claims were denied by petitioners.[10] The Ruling of the Labor Arbiter Under Decision dated July 30, 2012, Labor Arbiter Adolfo C. Babiano found respondent's preventive suspension unjustified. Petitioners were, thus, ordered to pay respondent the following amounts, viz: WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered ordering [petitioner] to pay [respondent] as follows: 1. P67,961.30 (P2,192.30 x 31 days) representing her wages during her illegal suspension; 2. P19,000.00 (P57,000.00 x 4/12) representing her proportionate 13th month pay ; 3. P10,000.00 as moral damages; and 4. P10,000.00 as exemplary damages TOTAL AWARD: P106,961.30 Attorney's fees at 10% of the total award : P10,696.13 All other claims are dismissed for lack of merit. SO ORDERED.[11] Petitioners appealed to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). Pursuant to Sec. 6, Rule VI ofthe NLRC Rules of Procedure,[12] they posted a cash bond[13] of P86,961.38 representing the amount of monetary award in favor of respondent, exclusive of damages and attorney's fees . In their appeal, petitioners maintained that respondent was validly suspended . Petitioners also asserted that respondent was liable to pay the Eighty Thousand Pesos (P80,000.00) "employment bond".[14] https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/66004 3/9