This document summarizes a court case from the Philippines involving a dispute over unpaid wages. Specifically:
- Petitioner Sunace deployed Divina Montehermozo to Taiwan as a domestic helper under a 12-month contract that expired in February 1998. However, Divina continued working for two more years under her Taiwanese employer.
- Upon returning to the Philippines in February 2000, Divina filed a complaint alleging she was jailed for three months and underpaid. She filed this complaint against Sunace, the Taiwanese broker, and her Taiwanese employer.
- The issue before the court was whether the knowledge of Divina's two-year employment extension could be imputed to Sunace,
This document summarizes a court case from the Philippines involving a dispute over unpaid wages. Specifically:
- Petitioner Sunace deployed Divina Montehermozo to Taiwan as a domestic helper under a 12-month contract that expired in February 1998. However, Divina continued working for two more years under her Taiwanese employer.
- Upon returning to the Philippines in February 2000, Divina filed a complaint alleging she was jailed for three months and underpaid. She filed this complaint against Sunace, the Taiwanese broker, and her Taiwanese employer.
- The issue before the court was whether the knowledge of Divina's two-year employment extension could be imputed to Sunace,
This document summarizes a court case from the Philippines involving a dispute over unpaid wages. Specifically:
- Petitioner Sunace deployed Divina Montehermozo to Taiwan as a domestic helper under a 12-month contract that expired in February 1998. However, Divina continued working for two more years under her Taiwanese employer.
- Upon returning to the Philippines in February 2000, Divina filed a complaint alleging she was jailed for three months and underpaid. She filed this complaint against Sunace, the Taiwanese broker, and her Taiwanese employer.
- The issue before the court was whether the knowledge of Divina's two-year employment extension could be imputed to Sunace,
This document summarizes a court case from the Philippines involving a dispute over unpaid wages. Specifically:
- Petitioner Sunace deployed Divina Montehermozo to Taiwan as a domestic helper under a 12-month contract that expired in February 1998. However, Divina continued working for two more years under her Taiwanese employer.
- Upon returning to the Philippines in February 2000, Divina filed a complaint alleging she was jailed for three months and underpaid. She filed this complaint against Sunace, the Taiwanese broker, and her Taiwanese employer.
- The issue before the court was whether the knowledge of Divina's two-year employment extension could be imputed to Sunace,
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1of 2
G.R. No.
161757 January 25, 2006
SUNACE INTERNATIONAL MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC., petitioner vs NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, Second Division; HON. ERNESTO S. DINOPOL, in his capacity as Labor Arbiter, NLRC; NCR, Arbitration Branch, Quezon City and DIVINA A. MONTEHERMOZO, respondents. Facts: Petitioner, Sunace International Management Services, a corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the Philippines, deployed to Taiwan Divina A. Montehermozo 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. Issue: Whether or not the the knowledge of the principal foreign employer can be imputed to its agent Sunace. Held: No. The knowledge of the principal-foreign employer cannot, be imputed to its agent Sunace. The theory of imputed knowledge ascribes the knowledge of the agent, Sunace, to the principal, employer Xiong, not the other way around. 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 Divinas 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. Article 1924 of the New Civil Code reading: The agency is revoked if the principal directly
manages the business entrusted to the agent, dealing directly with third persons.