This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2011-06-15 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| In its assailed 16 November 2007 decision in CA-G.R. CEB-SP No. 02232, the CA's then Eighteenth Division brushed aside said deeds of waiver, release and quitclaim on the ground, among other matters, that the same only covered the employees' separation pay and retirement benefits but did not extend to the benefits which had accrued in their favor under the imposed CBA; and, that to be valid, the waiver "should be couched in clear and unequivocal terms leaving no doubt as to the intention of those giving up a right or a benefit that legally pertains to them." [61] In so doing, however, the CA's Eighteenth Division egregiously disregarded the clear intent on the part of the employees who executed said deeds of waiver, release and quitclaim to relinquish all present and future claims arising out of their employment with GMC. Although generally looked upon with disfavor, [62] it cannot be gainsaid that legitimate waivers that represent a voluntary and reasonable settlement of laborers' claims should be so respected by the Court as the law between the parties. [63] It is only where there is clear proof that the waiver was wangled from an unsuspecting or gullible person, or the terms of settlement are unconscionable on its face, that the law will step in to annul the questionable transaction. [64] The absence of showing of these factors in the case at bench impels us to uphold the validity of said deeds of waiver, release and quitclaim and, to exclude the employees who executed the same from those still entitled to the benefits under the imposed CBA both before and after the remaining term of the original CBA. The waiver was all inclusive. There was not even a hint of a limitation of coverage. | |||||
|
2006-10-17 |
GARCIA, J. |
||||
| The enactment of R.A. No. 7169 did not nullify Monetary Board Resolution No. 612 which earlier placed the Bank under liquidation and caused the termination of employment of the petitioners. The Bank's subsequent rehabilitation did not, by any test of reason, "revive" what was already a dead relationship between the petitioners and the Bank. Neither did such rehabilitation affect the Court's pronouncement in Philippine Veterans Bank Employees Union-NUBE v. Philippine Veterans Bank[15] that the actions of the Monetary Board and its duly appointed liquidator were valid and that the former employees' claim for back wages must be rejected as they were lawfully separated. Reinstatement is a relief accorded only to an employee who was illegally dismissed.[16] | |||||