Meantime, on June 7, 1995, Congress enacted Republic Act No. 8042, vesting jurisdiction over claims of overseas workers with the National Labor Relations Commission (hereafter NLRC). Consequently, respondents claim was transferred to the National Labor Relations Commission, Arbitration Branch, in San Pablo City. After position papers were filed, on May 28, 1997, Labor Arbiter Andres C. Zavalla rendered a decision finding that private respondent was illegally dismissed and ordering petitioner to pay her salary corresponding to the unexpired portion of her contract of employment of eleven (11) months and nineteen (19) days equivalent to NT$151,996.80, plus ten percent (10%) of the award equivalent to NT$15,199.68 as attorney's fees.i[1] In time, petitioner appealed the decision to the National Labor Relations Commission, Third Division, Quezon City. On November 28, 1997, the NLRC rendered decision affirming in toto the decision of the Labor Arbiter.ii[2] On December 23, 1997, petitioner filed with the NLRC a motion for reconsideration;iii[3] however, on January 28, 1998, the NLRC denied the motion.iv[4] Hence, this recourse.v[5] On May 14, 1998, we required respondents to comment on the petition within ten (10) days from notice.vi[6] On July 13, 1998, the Solicitor General filed his comment, submitting the proposition that private respondent had been illegally dismissed by her foreign employer entitling her to payment of her salaries corresponding to the unexpired portion of her contract.vii[7] However, private respondent failed to submit her comment, and on February 1, 1999, we required her counsel to show cause why she should not be disciplinarily dealt with or held in contempt for such failure.viii[8] We now resolve to give due course to the petition. We consider private respondent to have waived the filing of her comment and set aside the resolution of February 1, 1999. The issue presented is whether the employer in Taiwan could lawfully terminate private respondent's employment as domestic helper for incompetence during the probationary period of her employment. Petitioner recruited private respondent for employment in Taiwan, and she executed a contract of employment with her Taiwanese employer under which she was to serve as domestic helper for a period of one year, with six months probationary period. After only eleven days of work, the Taiwanese employer terminated private respondent's employment for alleged incompetence. It is an elementary rule in the law on labor relations that even a probationary employee is entitled to security of tenure.ix[9] A probationary employee can not be terminated, except for cause.x[10]