5/28/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly should be limited only to validly substantiated claims under the two-year POEAapproved contract. If the claims were under the four-year contract, there is no showing that it was the contract that had been implemented in the jobsite; furthermore, it was not a party to this four-year contract. Lastly, it took exception to the exorbitant award of damages to Binalla – P500,000.00 each for moral and exemplary damages. The Court’s Action on the Petition and Related Incidents In a Resolution[24] dated August 8, 2011, the Court denied the petition for failure to sufficiently show any reversible error in the assailed judgment of the CA. This prompted Princess Joy to move for reconsideration[25] based on the same arguments in support of the petition. The Court then required Binalla to comment on the motion for reconsideration.[26] Binalla’s Comment In his Comment[27] filed without the assistance of counsel, Binalla stands firm on his position that Princess Joy’s appeal to the NLRC was not perfected as it failed to post a bond equivalent in amount to the labor arbiter’s award within the ten-day appeal period. On the merits of the case, Binalla takes exception to the claim that Princess Joy has been a “victim of gross and manifest injustice.”[28] He submits that on the contrary, he was a victim to the kind of injustice Princess Joy speaks about. He reiterates his deep misgivings over what happened to his employment in Saudi Arabia where he was made to work with a monthly salary of US$400, which to his knowledge was for four years, only to find out that he was entitled to $550 and just for two years. He laments that not only was he made to work under a contract inferior to that certified by the POEA; his employer even violated the contract in terms of withholding or non-payment of employee benefits due him. He thus entreats the Court to deny Princess Joy’s motion for reconsideration. The Court’s Ruling We partially grant the motion for reconsideration. The appeal bond issue The NLRC committed no grave abuse of discretion in taking cognizance of and acting on Princess Joy’s motion to reduce the appeal bond as it is allowed under Rule VI, Section 6 of the NLRC 2005 Revised Rules of Procedure,[29] and the motion was filed within the ten-day appeal period, together with the notice of appeal and the memorandum of appeal. Also, the motion was accompanied by a surety bond of P250,000.00, an indication of a genuine effort on the part of the agency to comply with the bond requirement. elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/57076 5/12