4/14/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly Pablo P. Erispe, Jr. and it is hereby ordered to pay him the amount of USD2,443.52 or its equivalent in Philippine currency at the time of payment, representing his salaries for the unexpired portion of his contract, plus USD244.35 also in its equivalent in Philippine currency at the time of payment, as and by way of attorney's fees. All other claims are denied. SO ORDERED.[18] Dissatisfied, Erispe filed an appeal before the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC).[19] The NLRC Ruling On February 21, 2011, the NLRC granted the appeal and modified the LA Decision by directing payment of additional monetary awards.[20] The NLRC ruled that since Erispe's employment is contractual in nature, the terms and conditions of his service should be based on what is stated in the contract which provides for a fixed amount of overtime pay, as well as three days vacation leave pay per month. The NLRC, however, denied the disability claim because no evidence was presented that Erispe was signed off due to medical reasons nor that he complied with the requirements for disability claims. Notwithstanding, the NLRC found the illness to be work-related and awarded a refund of medical expenses taking into consideration the proximity of Erispe's hospitalization from his sign-off. The NLRC disposed, thus: WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered finding the appeal impressed with merit. Respondents-appellees are hereby ordered to pay complainant-appellant, in addition to the award made in the assailed Decision, the following: 1. Overtime pay and vacation leave with pay amounting to US$7,856.91 or its equivalent amount in Philippine Peso at the time of payment; and 2. Refund of his medical expenses amounting to P20,889.10. Accordingly, the Decision of the Labor Arbiter dated September 17, 2010 is hereby MODIFIED. All other dispositions not otherwise herein modified, STANDS. SO ORDERED.[21] (Emphasis in the original) Both parties filed their respective motions for reconsideration[22] but were both denied by the NLRC in a Resolution[23] dated April 07, 2011. Ascribing grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of the NLRC, both parties elevated the case to the CA via Petitions[24] for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.[25] The Decision of the CA https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/66175 3/10