1/5/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly unexpired portion of the contract. Therefore, petitioner is entitled to attorney's fees. Petitioner is entitled to repayment of his last salary Petitioner was not given his November 2013 salary because Al Adhamain withheld it "as [petitioner's] placement fee."[35] The said salary deduction was improper because an illegally dismissed migrant worker is entitled to a full reimbursement of his/her placement fee. The LA's directive to refund petitioner's placement fee is really one for the repayment of petitioner's November 2013 salary because petitioner never paid respondents a placement fee. Petitioner is not entitled to 12% interest on the "refund" of placement fee The LA, the NLRC, and the CA incorrectly considered petitioner entitled to a "refund" of his placement fee because petitioner's latest salary (i.e., for November 2013) was deducted for such purpose. Petitioner is not entitled to a refund because he never paid respondents any placement fee. Consequently, petitioner is not entitled to a 12% interest on the same. Petitioner is not entitled to moral and exemplary damages Petitioner claimed to have substantially proven respondents' wanton, oppressive, and malevolent manner in terminating him to entitle petitioner to an award of moral and exemplary damages. However, the LA and the CA both found petitioner's evidence insufficient to prove his entitlement to moral and exemplary damages. Thus, We shall not disturb these factual findings as this Court is not a trier of facts in petitions for review on certiorari. Petitioner is entitled to legal interest on the judgment award In the case of Lara's Gifts & Decors, Inc. v. Midtown Industrial Sales, Inc.,[36] this Court clarified the imposition of interest previously stated in the case of Nacar v. Gallery Frames.[37] When the monetary obligation does not constitute a loan or forbearance of money, goods, or credits and there is no stipulation as to the payment of interest on the damages, a legal interest of 6% per annum under Article 2209[38] of the Civil Code shall be imposed. The imposition of such legal interest shall be reckoned from the date of extrajudicial or judicial demand and shall continue to run until full payment.[39] In the case of Hun Hyung Park v. Eung Won Choi,[40] this Court explained that such interest - called compensatory interest - will not be subject to the imposition of further interest under Article 2212[41] of the Civil Code. https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/65786 6/10