At the job site, respondent was allegedly found incompetent by his foreign employer; thus the latter decided to terminate his services.  However, respondent pleaded for his retention and consented to accept a lower salary of SR 800.00 per month.  Thus, SAAD retained respondent until his return to the Philippines two years after.   On November 27, 2001, respondent filed a sworn Complaint[4] for monetary claims against petitioner alleging that when he arrived at the job site, he and his fellow Filipino workers were required to sign another employment contract written in Arabic under the constraints of losing their jobs if they refused; that for the entire duration of the new contract, he received only SR 590.00 per month; that he was not given his overtime pay despite rendering nine hours of work everyday; that he and his co-workers sought assistance from the Philippine Embassy but they did not succeed in pursuing their cause of action because of difficulties in communication.   On May 31, 2002, the labor arbiter rendered a decision holding that the modification of respondent’s employment contract is not allowed under Section 10 of Republic Act No. 8042 (R.A. No. 8042);[5] thus, he should have received the original contracted salary of US$370.00 per month instead of the new rate given by SAAD.  It was also noted that respondent did not refute petitioner’s allegation regarding the non-payment of placement and other processing fees prior to deployment.   The labor arbiter also found that there is no differential as far as respondent’s overtime pay is concerned considering that he was given overtime pay based on the new rate of SR 800.00.  Since respondent rendered one hour of overtime work per day for only 18 months, and not the entire 24 months as claimed, the total overtime pay he received is more or less equivalent to the amount he ought to have received if the original contracted rate of US$370.00 was used.  Finally, the labor arbiter awarded respondent attorney’s fees equivalent to 10% of the total judgment award for being compelled to hire a counsel to protect his rights and interests.  The dispositive portion of the Decision reads:   WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered ORDERING respondent PLACEWELL INTERNATIONAL SERVICES CORPORATION to pay complainant IRENEO B. CAMOTE the amount of PESOS: TWO HUNDRED FIFTEEN THOUSAND FOUR HUNDRED TWENTY FOUR ONLY (P215,424.00) representing underpayment of wages and attorney’s fees.   SO ORDERED.[6]