privy thereto.  As such, it and its “owner” cannot be held solidarily liable for any of Divina’s claims arising from the 2-year employment extension.  As the New Civil Code provides,   Contracts take effect only between the parties, their assigns, and heirs, except in case where the rights and obligations arising from the contract are not transmissible by their nature, or by stipulation or by provision of law. [24]     Furthermore, as Sunace correctly points out, there was an implied revocation of its agency relationship with its foreign principal when, after the termination of the original employment contract, the foreign principal directly negotiated with Divina and entered into a new and separate employment contract in Taiwan.   Article 1924 of the New Civil Code reading   The agency is revoked if the principal directly manages the business entrusted to the agent, dealing directly with third persons.     thus applies.   In light of the foregoing discussions, consideration of the validity of the Waiver and Affidavit of Desistance which Divina executed in favor of Sunace is rendered unnecessary.    WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED.  The challenged resolutions of the Court of Appeals are hereby REVERSEDand SET ASIDE.  The complaint of respondent Divina A. Montehermozo against petitioner is DISMISSED.        SO ORDERED.       CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES Associate Justice   WE CONCUR: