4/10/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly We find no merit in the petition. The CA committed no reversible error and neither did it commit grave abuse of discretion in affirming the NLRC’s illegal dismissal ruling. The agency and its principal, Modern Metal, committed flagrant violations of the law on overseas employment, as well as basic norms of decency and fair play in an employment relationship, pushing the respondents to look for a better employment and, ultimately, to resign from their jobs. First. The agency and Modern Metal are guilty of contract substitution. The respondents entered into a POEA-approved two-year employment contract,[31] with Modern Metal providing among others, as earlier discussed, for a monthly salary of 1350 AED. On April 2, 2007, Modern Metal issued to them appointment letters[32] whereby the respondents were hired for a longer three-year period and a reduced salary, from 1,100 AED to 1,200 AED, among other provisions. Then, on May 5, 2007, they were required to sign new employment contracts[33] reflecting the same terms contained in their appointment letters, except that this time, they were hired as “ordinary laborer,�� no longer aluminum fabricator/installer. The respondents complained with the agency about the contract substitution, but the agency refused or failed to act on the matter. The fact that the respondents’ contracts were altered or substituted at the workplace had never been denied by the agency. On the contrary, it admitted that the contract substitution did happen when it argued, “[a]s to their claim for [underpayment] of salary, their original contract mentioned 1350 AED monthly salary, which includes allowance while in their Appointment Letters, they were supposed to receive 1,300 AED. While there was [a] difference of 50 AED monthly, the same could no longer be claimed by virtue of their Affidavits of Quitclaims and Desistance[.]”[34] Clearly, the agency and Modern Metal committed a prohibited practice and engaged in illegal recruitment under the law. Article 34 of the Labor Code provides: Art. 34. Prohibited Practices. It shall be unlawful for any individual, entity, licensee, or holder of authority: xxxx (i) To substitute or alter employment contracts approved and verified by the Department of Labor from the time of actual signing thereof by the parties up to and including the periods of expiration of the same without the approval of the Secretary of Labor[.] Further, Article 38 of the Labor Code, as amended by R.A. 8042,35 defined “illegal recruitment” to include the following act: elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/55155 8/15