b). Mandatory imposition of overtime work exceeding 10 hours without just overtime compensation and night shift differentials; c). Failure to comply with some stipulations stated in the Employment Contract particularly those relating to the accommodation and lodging of the contracted workers; d). Lack of observance of safety precautions at work area.[10] The respondents brought their problems to the attention of the management. In March of 1997, Fabian Chua, local manager of the petitioner PSRI, made a surprise visit to Kuan Yuan in Taiwan and was apprised of the said complaints. However, instead of solving the problems, Chua cautioned the respondents not to air their complaints and to simply forget about whatever plans they had in mind.[11] Disappointed, the respondents, along with their co-workers, contacted the Overseas Workers Welfare Administration (OWWA) in Taiwan and sought the latters assistance, only to be frustrated when their requests were not favorably acted upon.[12] Sometime in April of 1997, through the intercession of Chih-Hung, the manager of the new broker Chen Dard Manpower Co. Ltd., Long Island International Trade Co., Ltd, the overtime rate of the respondents was increased from 55NT$ to 85NT$. The respondents discovered, however, that work in the factory increased because of the increased volume of orders.[13] Moreover, their working conditions did not improve. On May 10, 1997, respondent Navarra and another employee, Pio Gabito, were summoned by the management and told that they were to be repatriated, without specifying the ground or cause therefor. They pleaded that they be informed of the cause or causes for their repatriation, but their requests were rejected. [14] Worse, the manager of their employer summoned the police, who arrived and escorted them to the airport. They were even given time to pack all their personal belongings. Upon respondent Navarras arrival in Manila, the petitioner sought to settle his complaints.[15] After the negotiations, the petitioner agreed to pay P49,000 to the said respondent but, in consideration thereof, the latter executed a quitclaim releasing the petitioner from any or all liabilities for his repatriation.[16] Meanwhile, when the other respondents learned that Navarra and Gabito were repatriated, they were disheartened at their fate. The respondents also decided to go home, but their employer and their broker told them[17] that they would be repatriated two days later, or on May 12, 1997. They were ready to leave on the aforesaid date, but were informed that they would have to pay their employer NT$30,000; otherwise, they would not be allowed to go home. As they were unable to pay the NT$30,000, the respondents failed to return to the Philippines.[18] The management and broker gave the respondents two (2) options: (a) imprisonment for their refusal to pay NT$30,000.00; or (b) sign separate agreements with their employer. The respondents had no other recourse but to sign agreements[19] authorizing their employer to (a) deduct the amount of NT$30,000 from their salaries; (b) remit their salaries to the Philippines; and, (c) deduct NT$10,000 from their salaries as bond.[20] However, the respondents were still not repatriated. The next day, or on May 13, 1997, their employer issued a regulation that overtime of ten hours