6/9/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly AND LEX LOCI CONTRACTUS. III THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED WHEN IT GRANTED THE AWARD OF ATTORNEY’S FEES EVEN WHEN THERE WAS NO BASIS THEREFOR AND OVER AND BEYOND WHAT WAS CONSISTENTLY AND ORIGINALLY PRAYED FOR BY THE RESPONDENT.[5] The petition is meritorious. The August 16, 1997 contract, i.e., the first contract, provided for an unspecified period of employment with Adelantar, as Tug Master, receiving a monthly salary, after his probationary period, of Dhs 5,890.00. This figure in Dirhams was used by the Labor Arbiter in computing the award equivalent to three months salary or the amount of Dhs 24,738.00 inclusive of fixed overtime. This was also used by the NLRC when it affirmed the award equivalent to three months, albeit, excluding the fixed overtime. The Court of Appeals likewise used the salary stated in Adelantar’s first contract in adjudging Pentagon’s liability but it did not limit the award to three months only. In interpreting the above provision, the Court of Appeals, citing Marsaman Manning Agency, Inc. v. NLRC,[6] held: x x x. A plain reading of Sec. 10 clearly reveals that the choice of which amount to award an illegally dismissed overseas contract worker, i.e., whether his salaries for the unexpired portion of his employment contract or three (3) months’ salary for every year of the unexpired term, whichever is less, comes into play only when the employment contract concerned has a term of at least one (1) year or more. This is evident from the words “for every year of the unexpired term” which follows the words “salaries x x x for three months.” x x x. Proceeding from the premise that the first contract, providing for an unlimited period of employment, is the applicable contract rather than the POEA-sanctioned second contract, the Court of Appeals concluded that Section 10 of R.A. No. 8042 is not applicable because “there will be no basis by which to determine the number of years within which the grant of salaries will be based.”[7] Stated differently, Section 10 of R.A. No. 8042, or The Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995, is not applicable in this case because said provision only contemplates a fixed period of employment while the first contract provides for an unlimited period of employment. Section 10 of R.A. No. 8042 provides: In case of termination of overseas employment without just, valid or authorized cause as defined by law or contract, the worker shall be entitled to the full reimbursement of his placement fee with interest at twelve percent (12%) per annum, plus his salaries for the unexpired portion of his employment contract or for three (3) months for every year of the unexpired term, whichever is less. (Italics ours) elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/45733 3/6