5/28/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly (1) US$3,500.00 in salary differentials for two years; (2) SR 1,500.00 or $400.00 representing six months’ salary deduction as bond to ensure completion of Binalla’s four-year contract; (3) $9,900.00 in overtime pay; (4) $550 in vacation leave and sick leave credits; (5) SR 1,200 in reimbursement of monthly deductions for board and lodging; (6) SR 3,000.00 in reimbursement of the vacation bond; (7) P500,000.00 in moral damages; (8) P500,000.00 in exemplary damages; and (9) 10 % in attorney’s fees.[12] Princess Joy appealed the LA’s ruling by filing with the NLRC a Notice of Appeal,[13] a Memorandum of Appeal,[14] and a Motion to Reduce and Fix Bond,[15] all dated November 24, 2005, accompanied by a surety bond of P250,000.00 for LA Aurellano’s monetary award of P800,875.00, exclusive of damages. Binalla opposed the motion, contending that the appeal was made in violation of the NLRC rules. On May 12, 2006, the NLRC issued an order[16] allowing Princess Joy to post the balance of the appeal bond to make it equal to P800,875.00. Binalla moved for reconsideration and opposed the posting of the additional bond. Through a Compliance[17] dated July 21, 2006, Princess Joy posted with the NLRC the required additional bond of P550,875.00. The NLRC then acted on the appeal and issued a resolution[18] dated July 27, 2007 reversing LA Aurellano’s decision. The NLRC ruled that the facts and evidence of the case do not establish “reprocessing” as the means for Binalla’s deployment to Saudi Arabia. It declared that, on the contrary, substantial evidence existed pointing to CBM’s sole liability as the recruiting and deploying agent of Binalla. It refused to give credit to the ticket telegram/advice Binalla submitted in evidence to establish Princess Joy’s liability as it was merely an unsigned and unauthenticated printout with no indication of its source, purpose, or the entity to whom it is addressed. In the matter of CBM’s liability, the NLRC stressed that while the agency waived its right to present evidence for its non-appearance, it can be held liable – together with Al Adwani – only for causes of action raised in the complaint and were duly proven. It pointed out that the complaint (the standard form) filed by Binalla mentioned only nonpayment of salaries, overtime pay, vacation/sick leave pay and refund of alleged salary deductions, including placement fee, plus attorney’s fees. The NLRC thus deleted the award to Binalla of salary differentials, food allowance, and moral and exemplary damages. Accordingly, it awarded Binalla $2,200.00 in unpaid salaries for four months; $550.00 for unused vacation and sick leave credits, plus 10% attorney’s fees. Binalla moved for reconsideration, but the NLRC denied the motion,[19] prompting him to seek relief from the CA through a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. He charged the NLRC of grave abuse of discretion in (1) entertaining Princess Joy’s appeal despite its failure to post an appeal bond within the ten-day appeal period; and (2) not appreciating the “reprocessing scheme” employed by Princess Joy in his deployment to Al Adwani. The CA Decision elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/57076 3/12