Sunace

SUNACE INTERNATIONAL MANAGEMENT SERVICES vs NLRC Case Digest
SUNACE INTERNATIONAL MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR

RELATIONS COMMISSION et al.
480 SCRA 146 (2006)
FACTS: Respondent Divina Montehermozo is a domestic helper deployed to Taiwan by

Sunace International Management Services (Sunace) under a 12-month contract. Such
employment was made with the assistance of Taiwanese broker Edmund Wang. After the
expiration of the contract, Montehermozo continued her employment with her Taiwanese
employer for another 2 years.
When Montehermozo returned to the Philippines, she filed a complaint against Sunace, Wang,
and her Taiwanese employer before the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). She
alleges that she was underpaid and was jailed for three months in Taiwan. She further alleges
that the 2-year extension of her employment contract was with the consent and knowledge of
Sunace. Sunace, on the other hand, denied all the allegations.
The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of Montehermozo and found Sunace liable thereof. The
National Labor Relations Commission and Court of Appeals affirmed the labor arbiter’s
decision. Hence, the filing of this appeal.
ISSUE: Whether or not the 2-year extension of Montehermozo’s employment was made with
the knowledge and consent of Sunace
HELD: There is an implied revocation of an agency relationship when after the termination of
the original employment contract, the foreign principal directly negotiated with the employee
and entered into a new and separate employment contract.
Contrary to the Court of Appeals finding, the alleged continuous communication was with the
Taiwanese broker Wang, not with the foreign employer.
The finding of the Court of Appeals solely on the basis of the telefax message written by Wang
to Sunace, that Sunace continually communicated with the foreign "principal" (sic) and
therefore was aware of and had consented to the execution of the extension of the contract is
misplaced. The message does not provide evidence that Sunace was privy to the new contract
executed after the expiration on February 1, 1998 of the original contract. That Sunace and
the Taiwanese broker communicated regarding Montehermozo’s allegedly withheld savings
does not necessarily mean that Sunace ratified the extension of the contract.
As can be seen from that letter communication, it was just an information given to Sunace that
Montehermozo had taken already her savings from her foreign employer and that no deduction
was made on her salary. It contains nothing about the extension or Sunace’s consent thereto.
Parenthetically, since the telefax message is dated February 21, 2000, it is safe to assume
that it was sent to enlighten Sunace who had been directed, by Summons issued on February
15, 2000, to appear on February 28, 2000 for a mandatory conference following
Montehermozo’s filing of the complaint on February 14, 2000.
Respecting the decision of Court of Appeals following as agent of its foreign principal, [Sunace]
cannot profess ignorance of such an extension as obviously, the act of its principal extending
[Montehermozo’s] employment contract necessarily bound it, it too is a misapplication, a
misapplication of the theory of imputed knowledge.
The theory of imputed knowledge ascribes the knowledge of the agent, Sunace, to the
principal, employer, not the other way around. The knowledge of the principal-foreign employer
cannot, therefore, be imputed to its agent Sunace.
There being no substantial proof that Sunace knew of and consented to be bound under the
2-year employment contract extension, it cannot be said to be privy thereto. As such, it and its
"owner" cannot be held solidarily liable for any of Montehermozo’s claims arising from the 2-
year employment extension. As the New Civil Code provides, Contracts take effect only
between the parties, their assigns, and heirs, except in case where the rights and obligations
arising from the contract are not transmissible by their nature, or by stipulation or by provision
of law. Furthermore, as Sunace correctly points out, there was an implied revocation of its
agency relationship with its foreign principal when, after the termination of the original
employment contract, the foreign principal directly negotiated with Montehermozo and entered
into a new and separate employment contract in Taiwan. Article 1924 of the New Civil Code
states that the agency is revoked if the principal directly manages the business entrusted to
the agent, dealing directly with third persons.
SUNACE INTERNATIONAL MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC. v. NLRC

SUNACE INTERNATIONAL MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC. v. NLRC
G.R. No. 161757; January 25, 2006
Ponente: J. Carpio-Morales
FACTS:
Petitioner, Sunace International Management Services (Sunace), deployed to Taiwan

Divina A. Montehermozo (Divina) as a domestic helper under a 12-month contract
effective February 1, 1997. 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 on February 1, 1998, Divina continued working for
her Taiwanese employer, Hang Rui Xiong, for two more years, after which she returned
to the Philippines on February 4, 2000.
Shortly after her return or on February 14, 2000, Divina filed a complaint before the
National Labor Relations Commission (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
Reacting to Divina's Position Paper, Sunace filed on April 25, 2000 an ". . . ANSWER
TO COMPLAINANT'S POSITION PAPER" alleging that Divina's 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
The Labor Arbiter, rejected Sunace's claim that the extension of Divina's contract for two
more years was without its knowledge and consent.
ISSUE:
Whether the act of the foreigner-principal in renewing the contract of Divina be
attributable to Sunace
HELD:
No, the act of the foreigner-principal in renewing the contract of Divina is not attributable
to Sunace.
There being no substantial proof that Sunace knew of and consented to be bound under
the 2-year employment contract extension, it cannot be said to be privy thereto. As such,
it and its "owner" cannot be held solidarily liable for any of Divina's claims arising from
the 2-year employment extension.
Furthermore, as Sunace correctly points out, there was an implied revocation of its
agency relationship with its foreign principal when, 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.

Sunace

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sunace

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sunace

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SUNACE INTERNATIONAL MANAGEMENT SERVICES vs NLRC Case Digest

SUNACE INTERNATIONAL MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR

FACTS: Respondent Divina Montehermozo is a domestic helper deployed to Taiwan by

SUNACE INTERNATIONAL MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC. v. NLRC

Petitioner, Sunace International Management Services (Sunace), deployed to Taiwan

You might also like