Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 155 views

    Sunace International Management Service, Inc. vs. National Labor Relations Commission 480 SCRA 146. January 25, 2006. J. Carpio Morales Facts

    Uploaded by

    mitsudayo_
    Sunace International deployed Divina Montehermozo to Taiwan as a domestic helper under a one-year contract. After her contract expired, Divina continued working for two more years. Upon returning to the Philippines, Divina filed a complaint against Sunace and others alleging underpayment and unlawful imprisonment. The Labor Arbiter ruled that Sunace and its owner must pay Divina. However, the Supreme Court held that Sunace was not liable as the foreign employer directly negotiated a new contract with Divina after the first contract ended, implying the revocation of Sunace's agency relationship with the employer.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Sunace International Management Service, Inc. vs. National Labor Relations Commission 480 SCRA 146. January 25, 2006. J. Carpio Morales Facts

    Uploaded by

    mitsudayo_
    155 views2 pages
    Sunace International deployed Divina Montehermozo to Taiwan as a domestic helper under a one-year contract. After her contract expired, Divina continued working for two more years. Upon returning to the Philippines, Divina filed a complaint against Sunace and others alleging underpayment and unlawful imprisonment. The Labor Arbiter ruled that Sunace and its owner must pay Divina. However, the Supreme Court held that Sunace was not liable as the foreign employer directly negotiated a new contract with Divina after the first contract ended, implying the revocation of Sunace's agency relationship with the employer.

    Original Description:

    Sunace v Nlrc

    Original Title

    Sunace v Nlrc

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Sunace International deployed Divina Montehermozo to Taiwan as a domestic helper under a one-year contract. After her contract expired, Divina continued working for two more years. Upon returning to the Philippines, Divina filed a complaint against Sunace and others alleging underpayment and unlawful imprisonment. The Labor Arbiter ruled that Sunace and its owner must pay Divina. However, the Supreme Court held that Sunace was not liable as the foreign employer directly negotiated a new contract with Divina after the first contract ended, implying the revocation of Sunace's agency relationship with the employer.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    155 views2 pages

    Sunace International Management Service, Inc. vs. National Labor Relations Commission 480 SCRA 146. January 25, 2006. J. Carpio Morales Facts

    Uploaded by

    mitsudayo_
    Sunace International deployed Divina Montehermozo to Taiwan as a domestic helper under a one-year contract. After her contract expired, Divina continued working for two more years. Upon returning to the Philippines, Divina filed a complaint against Sunace and others alleging underpayment and unlawful imprisonment. The Labor Arbiter ruled that Sunace and its owner must pay Divina. However, the Supreme Court held that Sunace was not liable as the foreign employer directly negotiated a new contract with Divina after the first contract ended, implying the revocation of Sunace's agency relationship with the employer.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 2

    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.

    You might also like