申論題

三、Taiwanese B recruits Filipino A through B’s local agent in the Philippines to work as a domestic helper in Taipei, Taiwan. A and B executed a standard employment contract designed by the Philippine Overseas Workers Administration (POEA) for overseas Filipino workers in the Philippines. It provided for her employment at a salary of US$1,000.00 a month during the employment period. It was submitted to and approved by the POEA. However, when A arrived in Taipei and set domicile in Taipei, A was asked to sign another contract by B, which reduced A’s salary to only US$400.00 a month. Having no other choice, A reluctantly signed the contract. However, B has not paid any salary for six months after starting employment. A sued against B and its local agent for the full monthly salary of US$1,000.00 for totaling US$6,000.00. Both B and its local agent claimed that the second contract is valid under the laws of R.O.C., and therefore binding on A. Assuming there is no express agreement of the applicable law in the two contracts. How does the applicable law in this case apply? What are “public order” principles? Is there any application of public order principle in this case? Is B’s allegation correct or reasonable? (25 points)