International Co. Ltd., a xerographic copy of which is herewith attached as ANNEX “2” hereof;               COMPLAINANT IS NOT ENTITLED             TO REFUND OF HER 14 MONTHS TAX             AND PAYMENT OF ATTORNEY’S FEES                           4.  There is no basis for the grant of tax refund to the complainant as the she finished her one year contract and hence, was not illegally dismissed by her employer.  She could only lay claim over the tax refund or much more be awarded of damages such as attorney’s fees as said reliefs are available only when the dismissal of a migrant worker is without just valid or lawful cause as defined by law or contract.                           The rationales behind the award of tax refund and payment of attorney’s fees is not to enrich the complainant but to compensate him for actual injury suffered.  Complainant did not suffer injury, hence, does not deserve to be compensated for whatever kind of damages.                           Hence, the complainant has NO cause of action against respondent SUNACE for monetary claims, considering that she has been totally paid of all the monetary benefits due her under her Employment Contract to her full satisfaction.   6.      Furthermore, the tax deducted from her salary is in compliance with the Taiwanese law, which respondent SUNACE has no control and complainant has to obey and this Honorable Office has no authority/jurisdiction to intervene because the power to tax is a sovereign power which the Taiwanese Government is supreme in its own territory.  The sovereign power of taxation of a state is recognized under international law and among sovereign states.                                 7.  That respondent SUNACE respectfully reserves the right to file supplemental Verified Answer and/or Position Paper to substantiate its prayer for the dismissal of the above case against the herein respondent.  AND BY WAY OF                           x x x x  (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)               Reacting to Divina’s Position Paper, Sunace filed on April 25, 2000 an  “. . . ANSWER TO COMPLAINANT’S POSITION PAPER” alleging that Divina’s 2-year extension of her contract was without its knowledge and consent, hence, it had no liability attaching to any claim arising therefrom, and Divina in fact executed a [7]