For her desire to improve her lot, as well as those she left behind, she weathered all the hardships and loneliness working abroad.               In the morning of January 24, 1995, she wrote her family in the Philippines of her difficulties as a DH in Taiwan and of her desire to return home after her one-year contract.  She requested the wife of [her] master to mail said letter.  Later that evening, she had a talk with her master where she was told that she is sending her home on account of  certain problems.  Complainant pleaded that she continue her employment, confronted as she was with the debts she had to pay.               On January 25, 1995, complainant was accompanied to the airport by a certain Ms. Go to whom she inquired why she was being repatriated to the Philippines.  All that Ms. Go answered was that there was some kind of a problem.  While at the airport, Ms. Go forced complainant to sign an Affidavit where it stated, among others, that her leaving as a DH was voluntary and that she would assume all the obligations for her travel back to the Philippines.  Since complainant did not want to sign said Affidavit, Ms. Go took complainant to the Office of the Foreign Affairs where, through an immigration police, complainant’s passport and plane ticket were given to her.  Two policemen accompanied complainant board the plane bound for the Philippines.               From January 13 to 24, 1995 or a period of twelve (12) days, complainant was only paid the sum of NT$1,931.00.               In resisting complainant’s allegations, respondent, in its Position Paper with an accompanying Affidavit of Bayani Fontanilla, Jr. and annexes, asserted the following material averments, to wit:               Complainant was hired and deployed for Taiwan as a domestic helper for a one-year contract with principal Chao Hung Ching in Taiwan with a monthly salary of NT$14,010.00.  Among other stipulations of the contract, it was agreed that she would undergo a forty (40) days probationary period before she becomes a regular domestic helper.               In the course of her recruitment, complainant was personally interviewed through telephone calls by her principal and apprised of the terms and conditions of her employment as a domestic helper in Taiwan.               Complainant was charged of her placement fees as allowed by law and by the POEA rules and regulations.               On January 13, 1995, complainant departed for Taiwan.  It was only on January 15, 1995 when she actually performed her work as a domestic helper after she had undergone an orientation.