During the first ten (10) days of her probationary period, complainant was observed to be inattentive and incompetent to perform her duties and responsibilities.  She could not cook and do simple things as washing clothes.  It was the principal’s mother-in-law who did most of the household chores, like babysitting of the child.  Worse, complainant was already complaining of the cold weather.  However, the principal was nonetheless optimistic that complainant would improve her chores, but to no avail as complainant kept insisting that she be allowed to go home on account of her incapability to perform her job.  The complainant even told her foreign employer that “she had hired a housemaid in their house for more than ten years to do the task.”   After the first ten (10) days’ work with the principal employer, complainant returned to the Philippines.[5]               On 26 December 1996, the Labor Arbiter rendered his decision with the following dispositive portion:               WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered ordering respondents jointly and severally to pay complainant the sum of P10,900.00 representing the excess placement fee paid by her; the amount of NT$161,115.00 or its peso equivalent in the amount of P155,411.15 representing her unearned wages corresponding to the unexpired portion of her contract; NT$3,492.22 or its peso equivalent in the amount of P3,368.59 representing salary differentials; and ten percent (10%) of the total monetary award due complainant as attorney’s fees.               SO ORDERED.[6]               Philemploy Services and Resources, Inc. (“petitioner”) and Chao Hung Ching appealed to the NLRC. The NLRC rendered its decision on 11 June 1998. The pertinent parts of the decision read as follows:               Right from the time complainant was accepted as an applicant for the position of Caretaker/Domestic helper, she has already a second thought about said position.  Her reason is that it is not the position she applied for.  (see No. 7 of complainant’s Sinumpaang Salaysay, page 30, record).  This statement is not found in the Arbiter’s translation into English of such Sinumpaang Salaysay which was adopted by complainant as part of her position paper, and upon which the Labor Arbiter’s a quo factual antecedents have been derived.