Complainants' employment contracts are for 12 months only and their salaries are for US$250.

00 per
month

Complainants allege that their employment contracts were changed from 12 months to 24 months or
two (2) years. They further alleged that their salaries are for US$350.00 per month. However, such
allegations are bereft of evidenciary weight as the same are not supported by the evidence on record. A
perusal of such contracts, Annexes C , D , and E of our Position Paper dated April 22, 2022, and their
Overseas Employment Certificate Nos. 10809946L, 10809921L, and 10809927L, as Annexes "A-1", "A-1-
A", and "A-1-B" of Complainants' Position Paper dated February 2, 2022, respectively, clearly shows that
their salaries are for US$250.00 per month only. While they worked for more than twenty (20) months,
as we have previously discussed in our Position Paper, they were only supposed to work only for 12
months but due to the travel restrictions brought by the Corona Virus-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, it took
a while before we can book a flight for them and on June 27, 2021, they safely returned to our country.

In order to prove that their salary as a fisherman/crew member is US$350.00 per month, Complainants
have attached in their Position Paper an Affidavit dated January 27, 2022 of Mr. Errol P. Rubite as Annex
"C" thereof. While Mr. Rubite, in his Affidavit, claims that he has knowledge on the application of the
Complainants and even claims that the offer is for US$350.00 per month however, a perusal of such
Affidavit would show that Mr. Rubite has no personal knowledge on what position, as an employee of
the subject Foreign Principal/Employer, would be receiving a salary of US$350.00 per month. In fact, the
herein Respondent Corporation had no tie-ups with an entity named "International Fishing Vessel China
Flag" neither does it show that such entity exists. As Mr. Rubite claims that he would be receiving
commissions on persons he had recruited, could it be that Mr. Rubite, in order to increase his
commissions, falsely and maliciously lead Complainants into believing that they would receive a salary of
US$350.00 per month? Nonetheless, Mr. Rubite is a biased and interested witness whose testimonies
have the aspects of fabrication albeit questionable and self-serving.

Further, Mr. Rubite is obviously not a party nor privy to the contents of Complainants' employment
contracts. Section 9, Rule 130 of the Revised Rules on Evidence provides that when the terms of an
agreement have been reduced to writing, it is considered as containing all the terms agreed upon and
there can be, between the parties and their successors-in-interest, no evidence of such terms other than
the contents of the written agreement. The SUpreme Court in the case of Norton Resources and
Development Corporation v. All Asia Bank Corporation discussed that under the "parol evidence rule",
such rule forbids any addition to or contradiction of the terms of a written instrument by testimony or
other evidence purporting to show that, at or before the execution of the parties' written agreement,
other or different terms were agreed upon by the parties, varying the purport of the written contract.
This is especially true if the person who contests the contents of such contract is not even a party nor
privy to the contents thereof. As such, the statement of Mr. Rubite may not be used as evidence to say
that the terms of Complainants' EMployment Contracts have changed.