Sarmiento, Guillermo, Bautista and Curameng, Jr. could no longer bear the worsening working conditions. In October 1997, they decided to go home. Their employer agreed to have them repatriated and to return their respective bonds, but required them to write letters of resignation. Respondents Sarmiento and Bautista did as they were told and wrote the said letters.[29] Respondent Curameng, Jr., for his part, signed a mimeographed form where he agreed to return to the Philippines.[30] On October 10, 1997, the said respondents were repatriated, but were required to pay for their own plane tickets.[31] On October 22, 1997, respondents Sarmiento, Guillermo, Curameng, Jr. and Bautista, together with respondents Paramio and Navarra, filed separate complaints before the NLRC Arbitration Branch against Bayani Fontanilla for illegal dismissal, nonpayment of overtime pay, refund of placement fee, tax refund, refund of plane fares, attorneys fees and litigation expenses. The cases were docketed as NLRC-OFW Cases No. (L) 97-10-4332 to 97-10-4335.[32] In their position paper, the respondents raised the issue of whether or not the petitioner PSRI and Bayani Fontanilla were liable for the reimbursement of their respective placement fees, nightshift differentials, overtime pay and damages, and their salaries for the unexpired portion of their respective contracts.[33] The respondents argued that under Section 10, Republic Act No. 8042, otherwise known as the Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995, PSRI was solidarily liable with Kuan Yuan for their claims. Since they were repatriated prior to the expiration of their respective contracts for no valid reason, PSRI was liable to pay their salaries for the unexpired portion of their contracts. The petitioner denied any liability on the respondents claims and asserted that the latter were validly dismissed. It averred that respondent Paramio was dismissed pursuant to Nos. 5 and 6, Article VIII of his employment contract. According to the petitioner, the said clauses allow the termination of a contract of employment prior to its expiration when the employee is (a) suffering from HIV positive antibody or other diseases; (b) heavily wounded or has stool parasite and cannot be cured within one month; or (c) found to have lost the ability to work. It averred that since complainant Paramio could no longer do his job because of his thumb injury, the termination of his contract was valid, and his dismissal proper.[34] Anent respondent Navarras claim, the petitioner PSRI ratiocinated that the termination of his services was for a valid cause because of an altercation he had with his supervisor. The petitioner further averred that respondent Navarra had demanded that he be paid the amount of P50,000 and after some negotiation, agreed to receiveP49,000. Respondent Navarra received the said amount and executed on May 23, 1997, a deed of release and quitclaim in favor of the petitioner.[35] As for the claims of the other respondents, the petitioner alleged that the respondents Guillermo, Bautista and Curameng, Jr. voluntarily resigned, as evidenced by their respective letters and agreement with the petitioner.[36] Moreover, the termination of their employment was legal, and their repatriation based on valid grounds. The