4/29/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly salary; and in awarding attorney’s fees despite the absence of proof of bad faith on their part. On August 25, 2004, the NLRC issued its Decision,[11] the dispositive portion of which reads: WHEREFORE, the Decision dated January 27, 2004 of the Labor Arbiter is AFFIRMED. Respondents-appellants[’] Memorandum of Appeal, dated 23 March 2004 is DISMISSED for lack of merit. SO ORDERED.[12] The NLRC affirmed the finding of illegal dismissal. It held that no notice of hearing was served upon petitioner, and no hearing whatsoever was conducted on the charges against him. It ruled that respondents could not dispense with the twin requirements of notice and hearing, which are essential elements of procedural due process. For this reason, no valid cause for termination has been shown. The NLRC likewise found respondents guilty of bad faith in illegally dismissing petitioner’s services. On the issue covering the award of unearned vacation leave pay and tonnage bonus, the NLRC struck down respondents’ arguments and held that in illegal dismissal cases, the employee is entitled to all the salaries, allowances and other benefits or their monetary equivalents from the time his compensation is withheld from him until he is actually reinstated, in effect citing Article 279[13] of the Labor Code. It held that vacation leave pay and tonnage bonus are provided in petitioner’s employment contract, which thus entitles the latter to the same in the event of illegal dismissal. Finally, on the issue of attorney’s fees, the NLRC held that since respondents were found to be in bad faith for the illegal dismissal and petitioner was constrained to litigate with counsel, the award of attorney’s fees is proper. Respondents moved for reconsideration which was denied by the NLRC in its March 18, 2005 Resolution.[14] Ruling of the Court of Appeals Respondents went up to the CA by Petition for Certiorari,[15] seeking to annul the Decision of the NLRC, raising essentially the same issues taken up in the NLRC. On November 30, 2006, the CA rendered the assailed Decision, the dispositive portion of which reads, as follows: elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/55699 4/12