11/9/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly The same could not be said with respect to the SMB or Special Maintenance Bonus at the rate of US$330.00 per month although it is also listed under the Basic Monthly Salary in the employment contract. This is because the aforesaid bonus is contingent upon the performance of certain maintenance duties on board the vessel as provided for under Section 11.2, Article 11 of the Collective Bargaining Agreement[29] between petitioner MECO and the Associated Marine Officers & Seamen's Union of the Philippines, in which Constantino is a member. The appellate court is also correct in not awarding the overtime pay provided in the employment contract. It is settled that the correct criterion in determining the propriety of the award of overtime pay is whether the seafarer rendered service in excess of the hours he was required to work under his contract.[30] In this case, Constantino failed to adduce evidence showing that he rendered service beyond the required forty-four hours per week. Hence, overtime pay could not be awarded. The appellate court also correctly ruled that Constantino is not entitled to moral and exemplary damages. The award of moral damages is proper where the dismissal was tainted with bad faith or fraud, or where it constituted an act oppressive to labor, and done in a manner contrary to morals, good customs or public policy. On the other hand, exemplary damages are recoverable only if the dismissal was done in a wanton, oppressive, or malevolent manner.[31] As observed by the appellate court, Constantino failed to prove by substantial evidence that his relief was attended by clear, oppressive, or humiliating acts on the part of the petitioners. Hence, he cannot be awarded with moral and exemplary damages. As to the attorney's fees, the award thereof was also proper. The Court has repeatedly held that the award of attorney's fees is legally and morally justifiable in actions for recovery of wages and where an employee was forced to litigate and thus, incur expenses to protect his rights and interest.[32] The propriety of the award of attorney's fees in this case is clear. It could not be denied that Constantino was forced to litigate and retain the services of his counsel thereby incurring expenses as a result of petitioners' act of illegally dismissing him and their refusal to pay him his salaries corresponding to the unexpired portion of his employment contract. Thus, Constantino is entitled to attorney's fees equivalent to 10% of his total monetary award. Finally, Section 10 of R.A. No. 8042, as amended by R.A. 10022, provides that if the recruitment or placement agency is a juridical being, its corporate officers, directors, and partners, as the case may be, shall be jointly and solidarily liable with the corporation or partnership for the claims and damages against it. Here, there is no dispute that MECO is a corporation engaged in the recruitment and placement of Filipino seafarers for its foreign principal. It is also not disputed that Capt. Sorrera is MECO's President and General Manager; hence, he is a corporate officer. Thus, the appellate court correctly adjudged Capt. Sorrera as among those who are jointly and solidarily liable to Constantino. WHEREFORE, the present Petition for Review on Certiorari is DENIED. The May 28, 2015 Decision and the January 21, 2016 Resolution of the Court of Appeals - Cebu City https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/65452 11/14