understand the terms and conditions of the settlement and that it was entered into freely voluntarily (sic) by them and the agreement is not contrary to law, morals, and public policy.               And because no consideration is indicated in the documents, we strike them down as contrary to law, morals, and public policy.    [11]       He accordingly decided in favor of Divina, by decision of October 9, 2000,  the dispositive portion of which reads:     [12] Wherefore, judgment is hereby rendered ordering respondents SUNACE INTERNATIONAL SERVICES and its owner ADELAIDA PERGE, both in their personal capacities and as agent of Hang Rui Xiong/Edmund Wang to jointly and severally pay complainant DIVINA A. MONTEHERMOZO the sum of NT91,950.00 in its peso equivalent at the date of payment, as refund for the amounts which she is hereby adjudged entitled to as earlier discussed plus 10% thereof as attorney’s fees since compelled to litigate, complainant had to engage the services of counsel.   SO ORDERED.   (Underescoring supplied) [13]     On appeal of Sunace, the NLRC, by Resolution of April 30, 2002,  affirmed the Labor Arbiter’s decision.   Via petition for certiorari,  Sunace elevated the case to the Court of Appeals which dismissed it outright by Resolution of November 12, 2002,  the full text of which reads: [14] [15] [16]             The petition for certiorari faces outright dismissal. The petition failed to allege facts constitutive of grave abuse of discretion on the part of the public respondent amounting to lack of jurisdiction when the NLRC affirmed the Labor Arbiter’s finding that petitioner Sunace International Management Services impliedly consented to the extension of the contract of private respondent Divina A. Montehermozo.  It is undisputed that petitioner was continually communicating with private respondent’s foreign employer (sic).  As agent of the foreign principal, “petitioner cannot profess ignorance of such extension as obviously, the act of the principal extending complainant (sic) employment contract necessarily bound it.”  Grave abuse of discretion is not present in the case at bar.