Waiver/Quitclaim and Release of Responsibility and an Affidavit of Desistance, copy of each document was annexed to said “. . . ANSWER TO COMPLAINANT’S POSITION PAPER.”             To Sunace’s “. . . ANSWER TO COMPLAINANT’S POSITION PAPER,” Divina filed a 2-page reply,  without, however, refuting Sunace’s disclaimer of knowledge of the extension of her contract and without saying anything about the Release, Waiver and Quitclaim and Affidavit of Desistance.             The Labor Arbiter, rejected Sunace’s claim that the extension of Divina’s contract for two more years was without its knowledge and consent in this wise:    [8] We reject Sunace’s submission that it should not be held responsible for the amount withheld because her contract was extended for 2 more years without its knowledge and consent because as Annex “B”  shows, Sunace and Edmund Wang have not stopped communicating with each other and yet the matter of the contract’s extension and Sunace’s alleged non-consent thereto has not been categorically established.   What Sunace should have done was to write to POEA about the extension and its objection thereto, copy furnished the complainant herself, her foreign employer, Hang Rui Xiong and the Taiwanese broker, Edmund Wang.   And because it did not, it is presumed to have consented to the extension and should be liable for anything that resulted thereform (sic).   (Underscoring supplied) [9] [10]             The Labor Arbiter rejected too Sunace’s argument that it is not liable on account of Divina’s execution of a Waiver and Quitclaim and an Affidavit of Desistance.  Observed the Labor Arbiter:   Should the parties arrive at any agreement as to the whole or any part of the dispute, the same shall be reduced to writing and signed by the parties and their respective counsel (sic), if any, before the Labor Arbiter.   The settlement shall be approved by the Labor Arbiter after being satisfied that it was voluntarily entered into by the parties and after having explained to them the terms and consequences thereof.   A compromise agreement entered into by the parties not in the presence of the Labor Arbiter before whom the case is pending shall be approved by him, if after confronting the parties, particularly the complainants, he is satisfied that they