G.R. No. 172342 3 of 11 http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/july2009/172342.htm xxxx Respondent said that he did not grab the offer for he intended to return after his vacation. For its part, petitioner offered payment and prescription as defenses. Petitioner maintained that MMG pays its workers their Service Award or Severance Pay every conclusion of their Labor Contracts pursuant to Article 87 of the [Saudi Labor Law]. Under Article 87, payment of the award is at the end or termination of the Labor Contract [9] concluded for a specific period. Based on the payroll, respondent was already paid his service award or severance pay for his latest (sixth) employment contract. [10] Petitioner added that under Article 13 of the Saudi Labor Law, the action to enforce payment of the service award must be filed within one year from the termination of a labor contract for a specific period. Respondents six contracts ended when he left Saudi Arabia on the following dates: April 15, 1993, June 8, 1994, December 18, 1995, March 21, 1997, March 16, 1998 and April 30, 1999. Petitioner concluded that the one-year prescriptive period had lapsed because respondent filed his complaint on December 11, [11] 2000 or one year and seven months after his sixth contract ended. [12] In his June 18, 2001 Decision, the Labor Arbiter ordered petitioner to pay respondent longevity pay of US$12,640.33 or P648,562.69 and attorneys fees of [13] P64,856.27 or a total of P713,418.96. The Labor Arbiter ruled that respondents seven-year employment with MMG had sufficiently oriented him on the benefits given to workers; that petitioner was unable to convincingly refute respondents claim that MMG offered him longevity pay before he went on vacation on May 1, 1999; and that respondents claim was not barred by prescription since his claim on July 6, 1999, made a month after his cause of action accrued, interrupted the prescriptive period under the Saudi Labor Law until his claim was categorically denied. Petitioner appealed. However, the NLRC dismissed the appeal and affirmed the [14] Labor Arbiters decision. The NLRC ruled that respondent is entitled to longevity pay which is different from severance pay. Aggrieved, petitioner brought the case to the Court of Appeals through a petition for 1/28/2016 11:55 AM