On June 28, 2001, the Labor Arbiter ruled that Lacerna was not illegally dismissed because she resigned as domestic helper of Low See Ting. This was affirmed on appeal by the NLRC in its resolution dated June 28, 2002.             On May 31, 2005, the Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the NLRC and held that Lacerna was illegally dismissed because no just or authorized cause was shown to justify her dismissal by Donna, her last employer.  It ruled that AIMS is solidarily liable with Proxy; and that Lacerna’s resignation did not exempt AIMS from liability because Section 10 of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 8042, or the Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995 provides that the liability of the principal employer and the recruitment agency shall not be affected by any substitution, amendment, or modification of the contract of employment.  The dispositive portion thereof, reads:   WHEREFORE, the foregoing considered, the petition is GRANTED and the assailed Decision is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accordingly, private respondents are ordered to pay petitioner the following:   1.         HK$11,010.00 corresponding to three (3) months of her salary   or its equivalent in the Philippine Peso at the time of payment;   2.         The amount of P18,000.00 with twelve percent (12%) interest per annum as reimbursement of her placement fee;   3.         P10,000.00 as moral damages;   4.         P10,000.00 as exemplary damages; and   5.         Attorney’s fees equivalent to ten percent (10%) of the total monetary award. No costs.   SO ORDERED.[8]               AIMS filed a motion for reconsideration but was denied.   Hence, the instant petition.             The issues for resolution are: Was Lacerna illegally dismissed?  If yes, may AIMS be held liable for the monetary claims of Lacerna.