VI WHETHER OR NOT RESPONDENT NLRC ACTED WITHOUT OR IN EXCESS OF JURISDICTION OR WITH GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OR EXCESS OF JURISDICTION IN NOT PENALIZING PRIVATE RESPONDENT SUPPLY OILFIELD SERVICES, INC. BY WAY OF SUSPENSION OR CANCELLATION OF ITS LICENSE AS SERVICE CONTRACTOR DESPITE ITS ADMISSION THAT IT ORDERS PETITIONERS AND OTHER OILRIG WORKERS TO ALTER TRAVEL DOCUMENTS BY USING TWO (2) PASSPORTS (OCW AND SEAMAN'S BOOK) DURING THEIR EMPLOYMENT VII WHETHER OR NOT RESPONDENT NLRC ACTED WITHOUT OR IN EXCESS OF JURISDICTION OR WITH GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OR EXCESS OF JURISDICTION IN NOT AWARDING DAMAGES AND ATTORNEY'S FEES TO PETITIONERS VIII WHETHER OR NOT RESPONDENT NLRC ACTED WITH GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OR EXCESS OF JURISDICTION IN DECLARING HEREIN THAT THE ISSUE OF ILLEGALITY OF THE LUMPSUM MODE OF PAYMENT OF SALARIES HAD BEEN RESOLVED IN NLRC CASE NO. 004779-93 CONSIDERING THAT IN THE LATTER CASE THE ISSUE IS LIMITED TO UNDERPAYMENT OF DAYSOFF PAY AND THE NLRC DID NOT RESOLVE THE ISSUES POSITED HEREIN."vi[6] We affirm. Anent the first issue, petitioners contend that the lumpsum mode of payment of salaries is illegal, citing Articles 5 and 6 of the New Civil Code, Articles 86, 87, 90, 93 and 94 of PD 442 and Book V, Rule II, Section 2(a) of the 1991 POEA Rules. We do not agree. As correctly observed by the respondents, none of the aforemetioned laws and rules prohibit the subject payment scheme. The cited articles of the New Civil Code merely provide that agreements in violation of law or public policy cannot be entered into and have legal effect. The cited provisions of PD 442 simply declare that night shift differential and additional remuneration for overtime, rest day, Sunday and holiday work shall be computed on the basis of the employee's regular wage. In like fashion, the 1991 POEA Rules merely require employers to guarantee payment of wages and overtime pay. Thus, petitioners' stance is bereft of any legal support. Anent the second and third issues, petitioners allege that their fixed monthly salaries represented only their basic salaries and did not include overtime pay, holiday pay, 13th month pay and night shift differential. In POEA Case No. 91-12-1348 and POEA Case No. 92-01-0011, the Administrator found and ruled that petitioners were not underpaid and that their fixed monthly