This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2009-07-09 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| On the validity of the quitclaims, we note that both VA Calipay and the Court of Appeals declared the same valid due to the failure of the employees to disclaim their signatures therein or assert that they were forced to sign the same. The only question before us is the extent to which the amount reflected therein is to be credited to petitioner's monetary award as the only employee who appealed the appellate court's decision. However, we find that VA Calipay and the appellate court erred in concluding that petitioner voluntarily signed the quitclaim. Contrary to this assumption, the mere fact that petitioner was not physically coerced or intimidated does not necessarily imply that he freely or voluntarily consented to the terms thereof. Moreover, private respondents, not petitioner, have the burden of proving that the quitclaim was voluntarily entered into.[16] As a rule, deeds of release or quitclaim cannot bar employees from demanding benefits to which they are legally entitled or from contesting the legality of their dismissal. The acceptance of those benefits would not amount to estoppel.[17] Furthermore, there is a gross disparity between the amount actually received by petitioner as compared to the amount owing him as initially computed by VA Calipay. The amount of the settlement is indubitably unconscionable; hence, ineffective to bar petitioner from claiming the full measure of his legal rights.[18] In any event, we deem it appropriate that the amount he received as consideration for signing the quitclaim be deducted from his monetary award. | |||||
|
2008-08-28 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| The releases and quitclaims, as well as the affidavits of desistance,[25] signed by the concerned employees, who were then necessitous men at the time of execution of the documents, are declared invalid and ineffective. They will not bar the workers from claiming the full measure of benefits flowing from their legal rights.[26] | |||||
|
2006-03-10 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| The Court also finds that the quitclaims executed by the individual petitioners in this case are valid and binding. Indeed, quitclaims executed by employees are commonly frowned upon as being contrary to public policy, and where there is clear proof that the waiver was wangled from an unsuspecting or gullible person, or where the terms of settlement are unconscionable on their faces, the law will step in to annul the questionable transactions. [49] However, when such quitclaim was made voluntarily and there is no evidence that the employer was guilty of fraud or intimidation in obtaining such waiver, as in this case, the validity of the quitclaim must be upheld. As the Court held in Magsalin v. National Organization of Working Men: [50] | |||||