On both issues, the Court rules in the affirmative.             There is no dispute that the last employer of Lacerna was Donna and not Daisy Lee because the Hong Kong government directed her repatriation before she could sign her contract with the latter.  In dismissing her, Donna gave no reason for her termination.  Neither did Proxy explain the ground for her dismissal.  And where there is no showing of a clear, valid, and legal cause for the termination, the law considers the matter, a case of illegal dismissal.[9]   In termination cases involving Filipino workers recruited for overseas employment, the burden of proving just or authorized cause for termination rests with the foreign based employer/principal and the local based entity which recruited the worker both being solidarily liable for liabilities arising from the illegal dismissal of the worker.  In this case, the Court of Appeals correctly declared Lacerna’s termination illegal since no reason was given to justify her termination.   AIMS argued that it cannot be held liable for the monetary claims of Lacerna because its contract was limited only to Lacerna’s employment with Low See Ting.  When she resigned as domestic helper of the latter, the contract was allegedly extinguished making AIMS no longer privy to the subsequent employment contract entered into by Proxy and Lacerna.   However, the records of the Immigration Department of Hong Kong belie the contention of AIMS that Lacerna was employed by Low See Ting.  The May 8, 2000 letter of the Hong Kong Immigration Department, states:   I refer to your application on 8 May 2000 for extension of stay to enable you to submit a fresh application for change of employer in Hong Kong.               Our records show that you were a domestic helper whose employment contract was terminated x x x prematurely on 5-4-2000. Subsequently, you submitted an application for change of employer in Hong Kong.  During the processing of the application, we were informed that your prospective employer had backed out.  Such application was thereby cancelled and you were allowed an opportunity to submit another application for change of employer after production of evidence of a second prospective employment.  You sought permission to submit a second application for change of employer.