5/19/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly longer discuss the second and third arguments as they pertain to the issue of illegal dismissal, which is not Hechanova's cause of action. The fourth argument requires an examination of documentary evidence and signifies that the argument is a factual issue, which is not a proper subject of a petition under Rule 45. Lastly, on the issue of attorney's fees, the Court finds the absence of bad faith on the part of Interorient. While Interorient confirmed that Hechanova's wife asked for medical assistance, the latter failed to provide the requested medical documents. Thus, Interorient has no basis to act on the request. It is not the same as an unjustified inaction forcing one to litigate. WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Court of Appeals Decision dated August 28, 2018 in CA-G.R. SP No. 149536 is MODIFIED. The Court DELETES the following: 1. The finding of illegal dismissal; 2. The reimbursement of placement fee and other deductions with 12% interest per annum; 3. The salary for the unexpired portion of the contract; and 4. The attorney's fees at 10% of the amount of salary. SO ORDERED. Peralta, C.J., (Chairperson), Caguioa, Inting, and Lopez, JJ., concur. * Additional member in lieu of Associate Justice Amy C. Lazaro-Javier per Raffle dated June 22, 2020. [1] Bucal v. Bucal, O R. No. 206957, 760 Phil. 921 (2015). [2] Penned by Associate Justice Rosmari D. Carandang (now a Member of the Court), with Associate Justices Amy C. Lazaro-Javier (now a Member of the Court) and Jhosep Y. Lopez, concurring; rollo, pp. 33-41. [3] Id. at 33. [4] Id. at 34. [5] Id. [6] Id. [7] Id. at 35. https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/66482 5/6