FACTS:

Under the employment contract entered by Tangga-an with Philippine Transmarine Carriers, Inc. 
(PTC) for and in behalf of its foreign employer, Universe Tankship Delaware, LLC., he was to b
e employed for a period of six months as chief engineer of the vessel the S.S. “Kure”. He was to 
be paid a basic salary of US$5,000.00; vacation leave pay equivalent to 15 days a month or US$
2,500.00 per month and tonnage bonus in the amount of US$700.00 a month. On February 2002, 
Tangga-an was deployed  but was dismissed on April 2002. Tangga-an filed a Complaint  for ille
gal dismissal with prayer for payment of salaries for the unexpired portion of his contract, leave 
pay, exemplary and moral damages, attorney’s fees and interest.

The Labor Arbiter found petitioner to be illegally dismissed. As regards petitioner’s claim for ba
ck salaries, LA said he is entitled not to four months which is equivalent to the unexpired portion 
of his contract, but only to three months, inclusive of vacation leave pay and tonnage bonus (or 
US$8,200 x 3 months = US$24,600) pursuant to Section 10 of Republic Act (RA) No. 8042 or T
he Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 2005.

ISSUE:

Whether or not an illegally dismissed overseas employee is only entitled to 3months back salarie
s.

RULING:

No. As held in Marsaman Manning Agency, Inc. vs. NLRC, involving Section 10 of Republic A
ct No. 8042, that an illegally dismissed overseas employee is not entitled to three (3) months sala
ry only. A plain reading of Sec. 10 clearly reveals that the choice of which amount to award an il
legally dismissed overseas contract worker, i.e., whether his salaries for the unexpired portion of 
his employment contract or three (3) months salary for every year of the unexpired term, whiche
ver is less, comes into play only when the employment contract concerned has a term of at least 
one (1) year or more. This is evident from the wording “for every year of the unexpired term” wh
ich follows the wording “salaries x x x for three months.” To follow the thinking that private resp
ondent is entitled to three (3) months salary only simply because it is the lesser amount is to com
pletely disregard and overlook some words used in the statute while giving effect to some.

Petitioner must be awarded his salaries corresponding to the unexpired portion of his six-month e
mployment contract, or equivalent to four months. This includes all his corresponding monthly v
acation leave pay and tonnage bonuses which are expressly provided and guaranteed in his empl
oyment contract as part of his monthly salary and benefit package. Thus, petitioner is entitled to 
back salaries of US$32,800 (or US$5,000 + US$2,500 + US$700 = US$8,200 x 4 months). “Arti
cle 279 of the Labor Code mandates that an employee’s full backwages shall be inclusive of allo
wances and other benefits or their monetary equivalent.” As we have time and again held, “it is t
he obligation of the employer to pay an illegally dismissed employee or worker the whole amoun
t of the salaries or wages, plus all other benefits and bonuses and general increases, to which he 
would have been normally entitled had he not been dismissed and had not stopped working.”
 G.R. NO. 180636 : March 13, 2013

LORENZO T. TANGGA-AN,* Petitioner, v. PIDLIPPINE TRANSMARINE CARRIERS,

INC., UNIVERSE TANKSHIP DELAWARE LLC, and CARLOS C.
SALINAS, Respondents.

DECISION

DEL CASTILLO, J.:

This Court's labor pronouncements must be read and applied with utmost care and caution,
taking to mind that in the very heart of the judicial system, labor cases occupy a special place.
More than the State guarantees of protection of labor and security of tenure, labor disputes
involve the fundamental survival of the employees and their families, who depend -upon the
former for all the basic necessities in life.

This Petition for Review on Certiorari1 seeks a modification of the November 30, 2006
Decision2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 00806. Also assailed is the
November 15, 2007 Resolution3 denying petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration.

Factual Antecedents

The facts, as found by the CA, are as follows:chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

This is a case for illegal dismissal with a claim for the payment of salaries corresponding to the
unexpired term of the contract, damages and attorney's fees filed by private respondent Lorenzo
T. Tangga-an against the petitioners Philippine Transmarine Carriers, Inc., Universe Tankship
Delaware LLC, and Carlos C. Salinas4 or herein respondents.

In his position paper, Tangga-an alleged that on January 31, 2002, he entered into an overseas
employment contract with Philippine Transmarine Carriers, Inc. (PTC) for and in behalf of its
foreign employer, Universe Tankship Delaware, LLC. Under the employment contract, he was to
be employed for a period of six months as chief engineer of the vessel the S.S. "Kure". He was to
be paid a basic salary of US$5,000.00; vacation leave pay equivalent to 15 days a months [sic] or
US$2,500.00 per month and tonnage bonus in the amount of US$700.00 a month.

On February 11, 2002, Tangga-an was deployed. While performing his assigned task, he noticed
that while they were loading liquid cargo at Cedros, Mexico, the vessel suddenly listed too much
at the bow. At that particular time both the master and the chief mate went on shore leave
together, which under maritime standard was prohibited. To avoid any conflict, he chose to
ignore the unbecoming conduct of the senior officers of the vessel.

On or about March 13, 2002, the vessel berthed at a port in Japan to discharge its cargo.
Thereafter, it sailed to the U.S.A. While the vessel was still at sea, the master required Tangga-an
and the rest of the Filipino Engineer Officers to report to his office where they were informed
that they would be repatriated on account of the delay in the cargo discharging in Japan, which
was principally a duty belonging to the deck officers. He imputed the delay to the non-readiness
of the turbo generator and the inoperation of the boom, since the turbo generator had been
prepared and synchronized for 3.5 hours or even before the vessel arrived in Japan. Moreover,
upon checking the boom, they found the same [sic] operational. Upon verification, they found
out that when the vessel berthed in Japan, the cargo hold was not immediately opened and the
deck officers concerned did not prepare the stock. Moreover, while cargo discharging was
ongoing, both the master and the chief mate again went on shore leave together at 4:00 in the
afternoon and returned to the vessel only after midnight. To save face, they harped on the Engine
Department for their mistake. Tangga-an and the other Engineering Officers were ordered to
disembark from the vessel on April 2, 2002 and thereafter repatriated. Thence, the complaint.

Philippine Transmarine Carriers, Inc., Universe Tankship Delaware LLC, and Carlos C. Salinas
on the other hand, contended that sometime on [sic] March 2002, during a test of the cargo
discharging conveyor system, Tangga-an and his assistant engineers failed to start the generator
that supplied power to the conveyor. They spent 3 hours trying to start the generator but failed. It
was only the third assistant engineer who previously served in the same vessel who was able to
turn on the generator. When the master tried to call the engine room to find out the problem,
Tangga-an did not answer and merely hang [sic] up. The master proceeded to the engine room to
find out the problem by [sic] Tangga-an and his assistant engineers were running around trying
to appear busy.

At another time, during a cargo discharging operation requiring the use of a generator system and
the conveyor boom, Tangga-an was nowhere to be found. Apparently, he went on shore leave
resulting in a delay of 2 hours because the machine could not be operated well. Both incidents
were recorded in the official logbook. Due to the delay, protests were filed by the charter [sic].

The master required Tangga-an to submit a written explanation to which he did but blamed the
captain and the chief officer. He failed to explain why he did not personally supervise the
operation of the generator system and the conveyor boom during the cargo discharging
operations. His explanation not having been found satisfactory, respondents decided to terminate
Tangga-an's services. Thus, a notice of dismissal was issued against Tangga-an. He arrived in the
Philippines on April 4, 2002.5chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

Tangga-an filed a Complaint6 for illegal dismissal with prayer for payment of salaries for the
unexpired portion of his contract, leave pay, exemplary and moral damages, attorney's fees and
interest.

On January 27, 2004, Labor Arbiter Jose G. Gutierrez rendered a Decision7 finding petitioner to
have been illegally dismissed. The Labor Arbiter noted that in petitioner's letter to respondent
Universe Tankship Delaware, LLC dated April 1, 20028 he categorically denied any negligence
on his part relative to the delay in the discharge of the cargo while the vessel was berthed in
Japan. In view thereof, the Labor Arbiter opined that an investigation should have been
conducted in order to ferret out the truth instead of dismissing petitioner outright. Consequently,
petitioner's dismissal was illegal for lack of just cause and for failure to comply with the twin
requirements of notice and hearing.9chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

As regards petitioner's claim for back salaries, the Labor Arbiter found petitioner entitled not to
four months which is equivalent to the unexpired portion of his contract, but only to three
months, inclusive of vacation leave pay and tonnage bonus (or US$8,200 x 3 months =
US$24,600) pursuant to Section 10 of Republic Act (RA) No. 8042 or The Migrant Workers and
Overseas Filipinos Act of 2005.

Regarding petitioner's claim for damages, the same was denied for failure to prove bad faith on
the part of the respondents. However, attorney's fees equivalent to 10% of the total back salaries
was awarded because petitioner was constrained to litigate.

The dispositive portion of the Labor Arbiter's Decision, reads:chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

WHEREFORE, the foregoing premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered finding Tangga-
an illegally dismissed from his employment and directing the respondent Phil. Transmarine
Carriers, Inc. to pay Tangga-an the amount of US$24,600.00 PLUS US$2,460.00 attorney's fees
or a total aggregate amount of US Dollars: TWENTY SEVEN THOUSAND SIXTY
(US$27,060.00) or its peso equivalent at the exchange rate prevailing at the time of payment.

SO ORDERED.10chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
Ruling of the National Labor Relations Commission

Respondents appealed to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). They claimed that
the Labor Arbiter committed grave abuse of discretion in finding that petitioner was illegally
dismissed; in awarding unearned vacation leave pay and tonnage bonus when the law and
jurisprudence limit recovery to the employee's basic salary; and in awarding attorney's fees
despite the absence of proof of bad faith on their part.

On August 25, 2004, the NLRC issued its Decision,11 the dispositive portion of which
reads:chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

WHEREFORE, the Decision dated January 27, 2004 of the Labor Arbiter is AFFIRMED.

Respondents-appellants' Memorandum of Appeal, dated 23 March 2004 is DISMISSED for lack

of merit.

SO ORDERED.12chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

The NLRC affirmed the finding of illegal dismissal. It held that no notice of hearing was served
upon petitioner, and no hearing whatsoever was conducted on the charges against him. It ruled
that respondents could not dispense with the twin requirements of notice and hearing, which are
essential elements of procedural due process. For this reason, no valid cause for termination has
been shown. The NLRC likewise found respondents guilty of bad faith in illegally dismissing
petitioner's services.

On the issue covering the award of unearned vacation leave pay and tonnage bonus, the NLRC
struck down respondents' arguments and held that in illegal dismissal cases, the employee is
entitled to all the salaries, allowances and other benefits or their monetary equivalents from the
time his compensation is withheld from him until he is actually reinstated, in effect citing Article
27913 of the Labor Code. It held that vacation leave pay and tonnage bonus are provided in
petitioner's employment contract, which thus entitles the latter to the same in the event of illegal
dismissal.

Finally, on the issue of attorney's fees, the NLRC held that since respondents were found to be in
bad faith for the illegal dismissal and petitioner was constrained to litigate with counsel, the
award of attorney's fees is proper.

Respondents moved for reconsideration which was denied by the NLRC in its March 18, 2005
Resolution.14chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

Ruling of the Court of Appeals

Respondents went up to the CA by Petition for Certiorari,15 seeking to annul the Decision of the

NLRC, raising essentially the same issues taken up in the NLRC.

On November 30, 2006, the CA rendered the assailed Decision, the dispositive portion of which
reads, as follows:chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant petition is PARTIALLY GRANTED. The

Decision of public respondent is MODIFIED in the following
manner:chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

a. Tangga-an is entitled to three (3) months salary representing the unexpired portion of his
contract in the total amount of US$15,000.00 or its peso equivalent at the exchange rate
prevailing at the time of payment;cralawlibrary

b. Tangga-an's placement fee should be reimbursed with 12% interest per annum;cralawlibrary
c. The award of attorney's fees is deleted.

SO ORDERED.16chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

The CA adhered to the finding of illegal dismissal. But on the subject of monetary awards, the
CA considered only petitioner's monthly US$5,000.00 basic salary and disregarded his monthly
US$2,500.00 vacation leave pay and US$700.00 tonnage bonus. It likewise held that petitioner's
"unexpired portion of contract" for which he is entitled to back salaries should only be three
months pursuant to Section 1017 of RA 8042. In addition, petitioner should be paid back his
placement fee with interest at the rate of twelve per cent (12%) per annum.

As to attorney's fees, the CA did not agree with the NLRC's finding that bad faith on the part of
respondents was present to justify the award of attorney's fees. It held that there is nothing from
the facts and proceedings to suggest that respondents acted with dishonesty, moral obliquity or
conscious doing of wrong in terminating petitioner's services.

Petitioner filed a Motion for (Partial) Reconsideration,18 which was denied in the assailed
November 15, 2007 Resolution. Thus, he filed the instant Petition.

Issues

In this Petition, Tangga-an seeks a modification of the CA Decision and the reinstatement of the
monetary awards as decreed in the Labor Arbiter's January 27, 2004 Decision, or in the
alternative, the grant of back salaries equivalent to four months which corresponds to the
unexpired portion of the contract, inclusive of vacation leave pay and tonnage bonus, plus 10%
thereof as attorney's fees.19chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

Petitioner submits the following issues for resolution:chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

I. Whether x x x the CA's issuance of the writ of certiorari reversing the NLRC decision is in
accordance with law;cralawlibrary

II. Whether x x x the indemnity provided in Section 10, R. A. 8042 x x x be limited only to the
seafarer's basic monthly salary or x x x include, based on civil law concept of damages as well as
Labor Code concept of backwages, allowances/benefits or their monetary equivalent as a further
relief to restore the seafarer's income that was lost by reason of his unlawful
dismissal;cralawlibrary

III. Whether x x x the indemnity awarded by the CA in petitioner's favor consisting only of 3
months' basic salaries conform with the proper interpretation of Section 10 R. A. 8042 and with
the ruling in Skippers Pacific, Inc. v. Mira, et al., G.R. NO. 144314, November 21, 2002 and
related cases or is petitioner entitled to at least 4 months salaries being the unexpired portion of
his contract; and

IV. Whether x x x the CA's disallowance of the award of attorney's fees, based on the alleged
absence of bad faith on the part of respondent, is in accordance with law or is the attorney's fees
awarded by the NLRC to petitioner, who was forced to litigate to enforce his rights, justified x x
x.20chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

Petitioner's Arguments

Petitioner essentially contends that respondents' resort to an original Petition for Certiorari in the
CA is erroneous because the issues they raised did not involve questions of jurisdiction but of
fact and law. He adds that the CA Decision went against the factual findings of the labor
tribunals which ought to be binding, given their expertise in matters falling within their
jurisdiction.
Petitioner likewise contends that the CA erred in excluding his vacation leave pay and tonnage
bonus in the computation of his back salaries as they form part of his salaries and benefits under
his employment contract with the respondents, a covenant which is deemed to be the law
governing their relations. He adds that under Article 279 of the Labor Code, he is entitled to full
backwages inclusive of allowances and other benefits or their monetary equivalent from the time
his compensation was withheld up to the time he is actually reinstated.

Petitioner accuses the CA of misapplying the doctrine laid down in Skippers Pacific, Inc. v.
Skippers Maritime Services, Ltd.21 He points out that the CA wrongly interpreted and applied
what the Court said in the case, and that the pronouncement therein should have benefited him
rather than the respondents.

Petitioner would have the Court reinstate the award of attorney's fees, on the argument that the
presence of bad faith is not necessary to justify such award. He maintains that the grant of
attorney's fees in labor cases constitutes an exception to the general requirement that bad faith or
malice on the part of the adverse party must first be proved.

Finally, petitioner prays that this Court reinstate the Labor Arbiter's monetary awards in his
January 27, 2004 Decision or, in the alternative, to grant him full back salaries equivalent to the
unexpired portion of his contract, or four months, plus 10% thereof as attorney's fees.

Respondents' Arguments

In seeking affirmance of the assailed CA issuances, respondents basically submit that the CA
committed no reversible error in excluding petitioner's claims for vacation leave pay, tonnage
bonus, and attorney's fees. They support and agree with the CA's reliance upon Skippers Pacific,
Inc. v. Skippers Maritime Services, Ltd.,22 and emphasize that in the absence of bad faith on their
part, petitioner may not recover attorney's fees.

Our Ruling

The Court grants the Petition.

There remains no issue regarding illegal dismissal. In spite of the consistent finding below that
petitioner was illegally dismissed, respondents did not take issue, which thus renders all
pronouncements on the matter final.

In resolving petitioner's monetary claims, the CA utterly misinterpreted the Court's ruling in
Skippers Pacific, Inc. v. Skippers Maritime Services, Ltd.,23 using it to support a view which the
latter case precisely ventured to strike down. In that case, the employee was hired as the vessel's
Master on a six-months employment contract, but was able to work for only two months, as he
was later on illegally dismissed. The Labor Arbiter, NLRC, and the CA all took the view that the
complaining employee was entitled to his salary for the unexpired portion of his contract, but
limited to only three months pursuant to Section 1024 of RA 8042. The Court did not agree and
hence modified the judgment in said case. It held that, following the wording of Section 10 and
its ruling in Marsaman Manning Agency, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission,25 when
the illegally dismissed employee's employment contract has a term of less than one year, he/she
shall be entitled to recovery of salaries representing the unexpired portion of his/her employment
contract. Indeed, there was nothing even vaguely confusing in the Court's citation therein of
Marsaman:chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

In Marsaman Manning Agency, Inc. vs. NLRC, involving Section 10 of Republic Act No. 8042,
we held:chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

We cannot subscribe to the view that private respondent is entitled to three (3) months salary
only. A plain reading of Sec. 10 clearly reveals that the choice of which amount to award an
illegally dismissed overseas contract worker, i.e., whether his salaries for the unexpired portion
of his employment contract or three (3) months salary for every year of the unexpired term,
whichever is less, comes into play only when the employment contract concerned has a term of
at least one (1) year or more. This is evident from the wording "for every year of the unexpired
term" which follows the wording "salaries x x x for three months." To follow petitioners'
thinking that private respondent is entitled to three (3) months salary only simply because it is
the 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 in
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.

It is not disputed that private respondent's employment contract in the instant case was for six (6)
months. Hence, we see no reason to disregard the ruling in Marsaman that private respondent
should be paid his salaries for the unexpired portion of his employment contract.26 (Emphases
supplied)

At this juncture, the courts, especially the CA, should be reminded to read and apply this Court's
labor pronouncements with utmost care and caution, taking to mind that in the very heart of the
judicial system, labor cases occupy a special place. More than the State guarantees of protection
of labor and security of tenure, labor disputes involve the fundamental survival of the employees
and their families, who depend upon the former for all the basic necessities in life.

Thus, petitioner must be awarded his salaries corresponding to the unexpired portion of his six-
months employment contract, or equivalent to four months. This includes all his corresponding
monthly vacation leave pay and tonnage bonuses which are expressly provided and guaranteed in
his employment contract as part of his monthly salary and benefit package. These benefits were
guaranteed to be paid on a monthly basis, and were not made contingent. In fact, their monetary
equivalent was fixed under the contract: US$2,500.00 for vacation leave pay and US$700.00 for
tonnage bonus each month. Thus, petitioner is entitled to back salaries of US$32,800 (or
US$5,000 + US$2,500 + US$700 = US$8,200 x 4 months). "Article 279 of the Labor Code
mandates that an employee's full backwages shall be inclusive of allowances and other benefits
or their monetary equivalent."27 As we have time and again held, "it is the obligation of the
employer to pay an illegally dismissed employee or worker the whole amount of the salaries or
wages, plus all other benefits and bonuses and general increases, to which he would have been
normally entitled had he not been dismissed and had not stopped working."28 This well-defined
principle has likewise been lost on the CA in the consideration of the case.

The CA likewise erred in deleting the award of attorney's fees on the ground that bad faith may
not readily be attributed to the respondents given the circumstances. The Court's discussion on
the award of attorney's fees in Kaisahan at Kapatiran ng mga Manggagawa at Kawani sa MWC-
East Zone Union v. Manila Water Company, Inc.,29 speaking through Justice Brion, is
instructive, viz:chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

Article 111 of the Labor Code, as amended, governs the grant of attorney's fees in labor
cases:chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

Art. 111. Attorney's fees. (a) In cases of unlawful withholding of wages, the culpable party may
be assessed attorney's fees equivalent to ten percent of the amount of wages recovered.

(b) It shall be unlawful for any person to demand or accept, in any judicial or administrative
proceedings for the recovery of wages, attorney's fees which exceed ten percent of the amount of
wages recovered.

Section 8, Rule VIII, Book III of its Implementing Rules also provides,
viz.:chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
'Section 8. Attorney's fees. Attorney's fees in any judicial or administrative proceedings for the
recovery of wages shall not exceed 10% of the amount awarded. The fees may be deducted from
the total amount due the winning party.

We explained in PCL Shipping Philippines, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission that
there are two commonly accepted concepts of attorney's fees the ordinary and extraordinary. In
its ordinary concept, an attorney's fee is the reasonable compensation paid to a lawyer by his
client for the legal services the former renders; compensation is paid for the cost and/or results of
legal services per agreement or as may be assessed. In its extraordinary concept, attorney's fees
are deemed indemnity for damages ordered by the court to be paid by the losing party to the
winning party. The instances when these may be awarded are enumerated in Article 2208 of the
Civil Code, specifically in its paragraph 7 on actions for recovery of wages, and is payable not to
the lawyer but to the client, unless the client and his lawyer have agreed that the award shall
accrue to the lawyer as additional or part of compensation.

We also held in PCL Shipping that Article 111 of the Labor Code, as amended, contemplates the
extraordinary concept of attorney's fees and that Article 111 is an exception to the declared
policy of strict construction in the award of attorney's fees. Although an express finding of facts
and law is still necessary to prove the merit of the award, there need not be any showing that the
employer acted maliciously or in bad faith when it withheld the wages. x x x

We similarly so ruled in RTG Construction, Inc. v. Facto and in Ortiz v. San Miguel
Corporation. In RTG Construction, we specifically stated:chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

'Settled is the rule that in actions for recovery of wages, or where an employee was forced to
litigate and, thus, incur expenses to protect his rights and interests, a monetary award by way of
attorney's fees is justifiable under Article Ill of the Labor Code; Section 8, Rule VIII, Book III of
its Implementing Rules; and paragraph 7, Article 208 of the Civil Code. The award of attorney's
fees is proper, and there need not be any showing that the employer acted maliciously or in bad
faith when it withheld the wages. There need only be a showing that the lawful wages were not
paid accordingly.'

In PCL Shipping, we found the award of attorney's fees due and appropriate since the respondent
therein incurred legal expenses after he was forced to file an action for recovery of his lawful
wages and other benefits to protect his rights. From this perspective and the above precedents,
we conclude that the CA erred in ruling that a finding of the employer's malice or bad faith in
withholding wages must precede an award of attorney's fees under Article Ill of the Labor Code.
To reiterate, a plain showing that the lawful wages were not paid without justification is
sufficient.30chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

In this case, it is already settled that petitioner's employment was illegally terminated. As a
result, his wages as well as allowances were withheld without valid and legal basis. Otherwise
stated, he was not paid his lawful wages without any valid justification. Consequently, he was
impelled to litigate to protect his interests. Thus, pursuant to the above ruling, he is entitled to
receive attorney's fees. An award of attorney's fees in petitioner's favor is in order in the amount
of US$3, 280 (or US$32, 800 x 10%).

WHEREFORE, the Petition is GRANTED. Petitioner Lorenzo T. Tangga-an is hereby declared

ENTITLED to back salaries for the unexpired portion of his contract, inclusive of vacation leave
pay and tonnage bonus which is equivalent to US$32,800 plus US$3,280 as attorney's fees or a
total of US$36,080 or its peso equivalent at the exchange rate prevailing at the time of payment.

SO ORDERED.