ACCORDINGLY, the petition is hereby DENIED DUE COURSE and DISMISSED.     SO ORDERED.   (Emphasis on words in capital letters in the original; emphasis on words in small letters and underscoring supplied) [17]     Its Motion for Reconsideration having been denied by the appellate court by Resolution of January 14, 2004,  Sunace filed the present petition for review on certiorari.   The Court of Appeals affirmed the Labor Arbiter and NLRC’s finding  that Sunace knew of and impliedly consented to the extension of Divina’s    2-year contract.  It went on to state that “It is undisputed that [Sunace] was continually communicating with [Divina’s] foreign employer.”  It  thus concluded that  “[a]s agent of the foreign principal, ‘petitioner cannot profess ignorance of such extension as obviously, the act of the principal extending complainant (sic) employment contract necessarily bound it.’”   Contrary to the Court of Appeals finding, the alleged continuous communication was with the Taiwanese broker Wang, not with the foreign employer Xiong.    The February 21, 2000 telefax message from the Taiwanese broker to Sunace, the only basis of a finding of continuous communication, reads verbatim:   [18] xxxx   Regarding to Divina, she did not say anything about her saving in police station.  As we contact with her employer, she took back her saving already last years.  And they did not deduct any money from her salary.  Or she will call back her employer to check it again.  If her employer said yes! we will get it back for her.       Thank you and best regards. (sgd.) Edmund Wang President [19]