lesser amount is to completely disregard and overlook some words used in the statute while giving effect to some. This is contrary to the well-established rule in legal hermeneutics that interpreting a statute, care should be taken that every part or word thereof be given effect since the lawmaking body is presumed to know the meaning of the words employed in the statute and to have used them advisedly. Ut res magis valeat quam pereat. Respondent Paramio was deployed on December 6, 1996.[65] His contract was for a period of twelve months or one year.[66] He was repatriated on September 23, 1997, approximately two months from the expiration of his contract. [67] Since the termination of his employment was not based on any valid or legal ground, he is entitled to the payment of his salary equivalent to the unexpired portion of his contract. He is likewise entitled to full reimbursement of his placement fee. Based on the record, respondent Paramio paid a placement fee of P19,000.[68] Thus, he should be reimbursed the amount of P19,000 with 12% interest per annum. Similarly, the petitioner failed to substantiate its claim that respondent Navarras repatriation was based on a valid, legal and just cause. The petitioner merely alleged that it was made clear to respondent Navarra that his repatriation was due to the fight he had with his supervisor.[69] Contrary to the allegation of the petitioner, respondent Navarra denied this in his affidavit, as well as in his reply to the position paper of the petitioner. Respondent Navarra asserted that he merely enforced his rights under the employment contract when he requested, time and again, that the provisions of his contract regarding the accommodation be fulfilled.[70] The claim of petitioner that respondent Navarra shouted invectives against his supervisor[71] was, likewise, unsubstantiated. The petitioner did not even present an affidavit of the superior with whom the respondent reportedly fought. Indeed, while fighting a supervisor may constitute serious misconduct[72] and may, consequently, be considered a ground for dismissal, in light of the petitioners failure to adduce substantial evidence to prove its claim that respondent Navarra fought his supervisor, this ground cannot be used to justify the dismissal.Thus, the termination of respondent Navarras employment was without factual and legal basis. Respondent Navarra was deployed on November 6, 1996.[73] He was repatriated on May 10, 1997, approximately five months prior to the expiration of his one-year contract. Considering our ruling in Marsamman Manning Agency v. NLRC,[74] he shall be entitled to an amount equivalent to three months salary, or NT$46,080. Similarly, having admitted that he paid a placement fee of P19,000[75] only, he is entitled to be fully reimbursed therefore, plus 12% interest per annum. As to the other respondents, the petitioner alleges that they refused to go to work and, in fact, voluntarily resigned. It appended the daily time records[76] of respondents Apolinario, Sarmiento, Ferdinand (Bautista) and Recto (Guillermo), as well as the resignation letters of Bautista and Sarmiento,[77] and Curameng, Jr.s written agreement with their employer. We do not agree. The records reveal that the three respondents agreed to execute the foregoing because they could no longer bear the working conditions in their place of