the contract and (c) cause of the obligation.[23] Based on the perfected contract, Private Respondent Guerrero complied with his obligations thereunder and rendered his services on board the vessel. Contrary to petitioners contention, the contract had an object, which was the rendition of service by private respondent on board the vessel. The non-deployment of the ship overseas did not affect the validity of the perfected employment contract. After all, the decision to use the vessel for coastwise shipping was made by petitioner only and did not bear the written conformity of private respondent. A contract cannot be novated by the will of only one party. [24] The claim of petitioner that it processed the contract of private respondent with the POEA only after he had started working is also without merit. Petitioner cannot use its own misfeasance to defeat his claim. Petitioner, as manning agent, is jointly and severally liable with its principal, [25] PCSASCO, for private respondents claim. This conclusion is in accordance with Section 1 of Rule II of the POEA Rules and Regulations.[26] Joint and solidary liability is meant to assure aggrieved workers of immediate and sufficient payment of what is due them.[27] The fact that petitioner and its principal have already terminated their agency agreement does not relieve the former of its liability. The reason for this ruling was given by this Court in Catan National Labor Relations Commission,[28] which we reproduce in part as follows: This must be so, because the obligations covenanted in the [manning] agreement between the local agent and its foreign principal are not coterminus with the term of such agreement so that if either or both of the parties decide to end the agreement, the responsibilities of such parties towards the contracted employees under the agreement do not at all end, but the same extends up to and until the expiration of the, employment contracts of the employees recruited and employed pursuant to the said recruitment agreement. Otherwise, this will render nugatory the very purpose for which the law governing the employment of workers for foreign jobs abroad was enacted. [29] WHEREFORE, the assailed Resolutions are hereby SET ASIDE, and the September 10, 1998 NLRC Decision REINSTATED andAFFIRMED. Costs against petitioner. SO ORDERED. Puno, (Chairman), Sandoval-Gutierrez, and Carpio-Morales, JJ., concur. Corona, J., on leave. [1] Rollo, Vol. I, pp. 14-23. [2] Id., p. 89. Written by Justice Renato C. Dacudao, member of the Special Tenth Division; concurred in by Justice Ma. Alicia Austria-Martinez (now SC justice and Division chairman) and Justice Rodrigo V. Cosico (acting member).