SUNACE INTERNATIONAL MANAGEMENT SERVICE, INC.

VS. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

480 SCRA 146. January 25, 2006.
J. Carpio Morales
FACTS:
Petitioner, Sunace International Management Services deployed to
Taiwan Divina A. Montehermozo as a domestic helper under a 12-month
contract. The deployment was with the assistance of a Taiwanese broker,
Edmund Wang, President of Jet Crown International Co., Ltd. After her
12-month contract expired, Divina continued working for her Taiwanese
employer, Hang Rui Xiong, for two more years, after which she returned
to the Philippines. Shortly after her return, Divina filed a complaint
before the NLRC against Sunace, one Adelaide Perez, the Taiwanese
broker, and the employer-foreign principal alleging that she was jailed for
three months and that she was underpaid.
Labor Arbitration Associate Regina T. Gavin issued Summons to
the Manager of Sunace. Divina was claiming the refund of the deduction
for income tax and savings under the one-year and 2-year extended
contract. Sunace says she was not entitled to refund for 24 months
savings because employer did not deduct any from her salary from there.
There is also no basis for her claim of tax refund because as the she
finished her one year contract and hence, was not illegally dismissed by
her employer. Sunace then filed an answer alleging that Divinas 2-year
extension of her contract was without its knowledge and consent, hence,
it had no liability attaching to any claim arising therefrom, and Divina in
fact executed a Waiver/Quitclaim and Release of Responsibility and an
Affidavit of Desistance, copy of each document was annexed to said ". . .
answer to complainants position paper." The Labor Arbiter rejected
Sunaces claim that the extension of Divinas contract for two more years
was without its knowledge. Labor Arbiter also says that any agreement
for settlement should be reduced to writing and signed by parties and
counsel before Labor Arbiter. It was held that Sunace and its owner,
Perge, both in their personal capacities and as an agent of Hang Rui
Xiong should jointly and severally pay Divina.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Sunace is liable as an agent of Hong Rui Xiong

HELD:
No, Sunace and its owner cannot be held liable for Divina as there was an
implied revocation of its agency relationship with its foreign principal

RATIO DECIDENDI:
Under Article 1924 of the New Civil Code, 'The agency is revoked if the
principal directly manages the business entrusted to the agent, dealing
directly with third persons'. In the present case, after the termination of
the original employment contract, the foreign principal directly
negotiated with Divina and entered into a new and separate employment
contract in Taiwan. Thus, making Sunace no longer liable to Divina.