Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1991 > August 1991 Decisions > G.R. No. 87297 August 5, 1991 - ALFREDO VELOSO, ET AL. v. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT, ET AL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 87297. August 5, 1991.]

ALFREDO VELOSO and EDITO LIGUATON, Petitioners, v. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT, NOAH’S ARK SUGAR CARRIERS AND WILSON T. GO, Respondents.


D E C I S I O N


CRUZ, J.:


The law looks with disfavor upon quitclaims and releases by employees who are inveigled or pressured into signing them by unscrupulous employers seeking to evade their legal responsibilities. On the other hand, there are legitimate waivers that represent a voluntary settlement of laborer’s claims that should be respected by the courts as the law between the parties.

In the case at bar, the petitioners claim that they were forced to sign their respective releases in favor of their employer, the herein private respondent, by reason of their dire necessity. The latter, for its part, insists that the petitioner entered into the compromise agreement freely and with open eyes and should not now be permitted to reject their solemn commitments.

The controversy began when the petitioners, along with several co-employees, filed a complaint against the private respondent for unfair labor practices, underpayment, and non-payment of overtime, holiday, and other benefits. This was decided in favor of the complainants on October 6, 1987. The motion for reconsideration, which was treated as an appeal, was dismissed in a resolution dated February 17, 1988, the dispositive portion of which read as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

WHEREFORE, the instant appeal is hereby DISMISSED and the questioned Order affirmed with the modification that the monetary awards to Jeric Dequito, Custodio Ganuhay, Conrado Mori and Rogelio Veloso are hereby deleted for being settled. Let execution push through with respect to the awards to Alfredo Veloso and Edito Liguaton.

On February 23, 1988, the private respondent filed a motion for reconsideration and recomputation of the amount awarded to the petitioners. On April 15, 1988, while the motion was pending, petitioner Alfredo Veloso, through his wife Connie, signed a Quitclaim and Release for and in consideration of P25,000.00, 1 and on the same day his counsel, Atty. Gaga Mauna, manifested "Satisfaction of Judgment" by receipt of the said sum by Veloso. 2 For his part, petitioner Liguaton filed a motion to dismiss dated July 16, 1988, based on a Release and Quitclaim dated July 19, 1988, 3 for and in consideration of the sum of P20,000.00 he acknowledged to have received from the private Respondent. 4

These releases were later impugned by the petitioners on September 20, 1988, on the ground that they were constrained to sign the documents because of their "extreme necessity." In an Order dated December 16, 1988, the Undersecretary of Labor rejected their contention and ruled:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

IN VIEW THEREOF, complainants Motion to Declare Quitclaim Null and Void is hereby denied for lack of merit and the compromise agreements/settlements dated April 15, 1988 and July 19, 1988 are hereby approved. Respondents’ motion for reconsideration is hereby denied for being moot and academic.

Reconsideration of the order having been denied on March 7, 1989, the petitioners have come to this Court on certiorari. They ask that the quitclaims they have signed be annulled and that writs of execution be issued for the sum of P21,267.92 in favor of Veloso and the sum of P26,267.92 in favor of Liguaton in settlement of their claims.

Their petition is based primarily on Pampanga Sugar Development Co., Inc. v. Court of Industrial Relations, 5 where it was held:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

. . . while rights may be waived, the same must not be contrary to law, public order, public policy, morals or good customs or prejudicial to a third person with a right recognized by law. (Art. 6, New Civil Code) . . .

. . . The above-quoted provision renders the quitclaim agreements void ad initio in their entirety since they obligated the workers concerned to forego their benefits, while at the same time, exempted the petitioner from any liability that it may choose to reject. This runs counter to Art. 22 of the new Civil Code which provides that no one shall be unjustly enriched at the expense of another.chanrobles.com:cralaw:red

The Court had deliberated on the issues and the arguments of the parties and finds that the petition must fail. The exception and not the rule shall be applied in this case.

The case cited is not apropos because the quitclaims therein invoked were secured by the employer after it had already lost in the lower court and were subsequently rejected by this Court when the employer invoked it in a petition for certiorari. By contrast, the quitclaims in the case before us were signed by the petitioners while the motion for reconsideration was still pending in the DOLE, which finally denied it on March 7, 1989. Furthermore, the quitclaims in the cited case were entered into without leave of the lower court whereas in the case at bar the quitclaims were made with the knowledge and approval of the DOLE, which declared in its order of December 16, 1988, that "the compromise agreement/settlements dated April 15, 1988 and July 19, 1988 are hereby approved."cralaw virtua1aw library

It is also noteworthy that the quitclaims were voluntarily and knowingly made by both petitioners even if they may now deny this. In the case of Veloso, the quitclaim he had signed carried the notation that the sum stated therein had been paid to him in the presence of Atty. Gaga Mauna, his counsel, and the document was attested by Atty. Ferdinand Magabilin, Chief of the Industrial Relations Division of the National Capitol Region of the DOLE. In the case of Liguaton, his quitclaim was made with the assistance of his counsel, Atty. Leopoldo Balguma, who also notarized it and later confirmed it with the filing of the motion to dismiss Liguaton’s complaint.

The same Atty. Balguma is the petitioners’ counsel in this proceeding. Curiously, he is now challenging the very same quitclaim of Liguaton that he himself notarized and invoked as the basis of Liguaton’s motion to dismiss, but this time for a different reason. Whereas he had earlier argued for Liguaton that the latter’s signature was a forgery, he has abandoned that contention and now claims that the quitclaim had been executed because of the petitioners’ "dire necessity."cralaw virtua1aw library

"Dire necessity" is not an acceptable ground for annulling the releases, especially since it has not been shown that the employees had been forced to execute them. It has not even been proven that the considerations for the quitclaims were unconscionably low and that the petitioners had been tricked into accepting them. While it is true that the writ of execution dated November 24, 1987, called for the collection of the amount of P46,267.92 each for the petitioners, that amount was still subject to recomputation and modification as the private respondent’s motion for reconsideration was still pending before the DOLE. The fact that the petitioners accepted the lower amounts would suggest that the original award was exorbitant and they were apprehensive that it would be adjusted and reduced. In any event, no deception has been established on the part of the private respondent that would justify the annulment of the petitioners’ quitclaims.

The applicable law is Article 227 of the Labor Code providing clearly as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

ARTICLE 227. Compromise agreements. — Any compromise settlement, including those involving labor standard laws, voluntarily agreed upon by the parties with the assistance of the Bureau or the regional office of the Department of Labor, shall be final and binding upon the parties. The National Labor Relations Commission or any court shall not assume jurisdiction over issues involved therein except in case of non-compliance thereof or if there is prima facie evidence that the settlement was obtained through fraud, misrepresentation or coercion.

The petitioners cannot renege on their agreement simply because they may now feel they made a mistake in not awaiting the resolution of the private respondent’s motion for reconsideration and recomputation. The possibility that the original award might have been affirmed does not justify the invalidation of the perfectly valid compromise agreements they had entered into in good faith and with full voluntariness. In General Rubber and Footwear Corp. v. Drilon, 6 we "made clear that the Court is not saying that accrued money claims can never be effectively waived by workers and employees." As we later declared in Periquet v. NLRC : 7

Not all waivers and quitclaims are invalid as against public policy. If the agreement was voluntarily entered into and represents a reasonable settlement, it is binding on the parties and may not later be disowned simply because of a change of mind. 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. But where it is shown that the person making the waiver did so voluntarily, with full understanding of what he was doing, and the consideration for the quitclaim is credible and reasonable, the transaction must be recognized as a valid and binding undertaking. As in this case.

We find that the questioned quitclaims were voluntarily and knowingly executed and that the petitioners should not be relieved of their waivers on the ground that they now feel they were improvident in agreeing to the compromise. What they call their "dire necessity" then is no warrant to nullify their solemn undertaking, which cannot be any less binding on them simply because they are laborers and deserve the protection of the Constitution. The Constitution protects the just, and it is not the petitioners in this case.chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED, with costs against the petitioners. It is so ordered.

Narvasa, Gancayco, Griño-Aquino and Medialdea, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. Rollo, p. 9.

2. Original Records, p. 163. .

3. Rollo, p. 11.

4. Ibid., p. 10.

5. 114 SCRA 725.

6. 169 SCRA 808.

7. 186 SCRA 724.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






August-1991 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 66880 August 2, 1991 - VICTORIAS MILLING CO. INC. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 74146 August 2, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. REMELITO LUBREO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 76500 August 2, 1991 - SPS. AQUILINO GATMAITAN, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 92427 August 2, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROBERTO PIDO

  • G.R. No. 92739 August 2, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE BURGOS

  • G.R. No. 92871 August 2, 1991 - MARIA P. VDA. DE JOMOC, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 93177 August 2, 1991 - JOSE COMENDADOR, ET AL. v. RENATO S. DE VILLA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 94359 August 2, 1991 - AYALA INTEGRATED STEEL MANUFACTURING CO., INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 95818 August 2, 1991 - LEOPOLDO SY v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 96784 August 2, 1991 - BAC MANUFACTURING, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 42542 August 5, 1991 - CARLOS DIMAYUGA v. PHILIPPINE COMMERCIAL & INDUSTRIAL BANK, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 80591 August 6, 1991 - IN RE: DANIEL NGAYA-AN, ET AL. v. CONRADO BALWEG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 82868 August 5, 1991 - DIOSCORO RABAGO, ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 83207 August 5, 1991 - MARCOPPER MINING CORPORATION v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 84672 August 5, 1991 - IMPERIAL VICTORY SHIPPING AGENCY v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 84846 August 5, 1991 - JESUS D. AGUJA v. GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 86320 August 5, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALFREDO V. RUMERAL

  • G.R. No. 87297 August 5, 1991 - ALFREDO VELOSO, ET AL. v. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 89376 August 5, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DIONISIO O. LORENZO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 90482 August 5, 1991 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 90501 August 5, 1991 - ARIS (PHIL.) INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 93072 August 5, 1991 - PACIFICO Y. OCAMPO v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 93252 August 5, 1991 - RODOLFO T. GANZON v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 93433 August 5, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NGUYEN DINH NHAN

  • G.R. No. 95697 August 5, 1991 - PEREGRINO ROSALES v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 95445 August 6, 1991 - MANILA PUBLIC SCHOOL TEACHERS ASSOCIATION, ET AL. v. PERFECTO LAGUIO, JR.

  • G.R. No. 81768 August 7, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROMEO F. REMOROSA

  • G.R. No. 89762 August 7, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANTONIO M. LAZARTE

  • G.R. Nos. 90907-12 August 7, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CONRADO DE LA CRUZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 76189 August 8, 1991 - ROBERTO M. OCA, JR., ET AL. v. CRESENCIANO B. TRAJANO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 35495 August 9, 1991 - RAYMUNDO ANCHETA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 83722 August 9, 1991 - MARITA CABANGIS, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 90338 August 9, 1991 - JAIME T. TORRES v. FIRST DIVISION, NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 92643 August 9, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSEFINO DE LOS SANTOS

  • G.R. No. 93070 August 9, 1991 - NORMAN DE VERA v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 93213 August 9, 1991 - LUCIO TAN ALIM v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 94052 August 9, 1991 - ORIENTAL ASSURANCE CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 95351 August 9, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JIMMY LAURIO, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. MTJ-90-495 August 12, 1991 - LOLITA MARTIN v. PLACIDO B. VALLARTA

  • A.C. No. 2285 August 12, 1991 - MARIA TIANIA v. AMADO OCAMPO

  • G.R. No. 46787 August 12, 1991 - FLORO CEMENT CORP. v. BENJAMIN K. GOROSPE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 68491 August 12, 1991 - SALVADOR JACULINA v. NATIONAL POLICE COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 75052-53 August 12, 1991 - TAIHEI COMPANY LTD. AND MARITIME FACTORS, INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 82340 August 12, 1991 - DUMEZ COMPANY OF FRANCE v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 90336 August 12, 1991 - RUPERTO TAULE v. LUIS T. SANTOS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 92376 August 12, 1991 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL, ET AL. v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 92457-58 August 12, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. WILFREDO M. JIMENEZ

  • A.M. No. R-462-P August 13, 1991 - JOSE GULFIN v. CHRISOLDO SERRANO

  • G.R. No. 521518 August 13, 1991 - INT’L. HARDWOOD AND VENEER CO. OF THE PHIL. v. UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 95709 August 13, 1991 - DULCE BEO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • A.C. No. 3056 August 16, 1991 - FERNANDO T. COLLANTES v. VICENTE C. RENOMERON

  • A.M. No. MTJ-88-173 August 16, 1991 - SABENIANA M. PEREZ v. PANFILO W. ALPUERTO

  • A.M. No. MTJ-89-300 August 16, 1991 - HERMAN REY. SANTOS v. EDMUNDO M. ISIDRO

  • G.R. No. 54276 August 16, 1991 - DIRECTOR OF LANDS v. IGLESIA NI KRISTO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 65864 August 16, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PABLO MANGULABNAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 71153 August 16, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EFREN PEÑONES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 71694 August 16, 1991 - NYCO SALES CORPORATION v. BA FINANCE CORPORATION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 81337 August 16, 1991 - RICHARD V. PETRALBA v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 82077 August 16, 1991 - MIDSAPAK TAMPAR, ET AL. v. ESMAEL USMAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 84613 August 16, 1991 - LAMBERTO MIRANDA v. COMMISSION ON AUDIT

  • G.R. No. 85061 August 16, 1991 - EASTERN SHIPPING LINES, INC. v. PHILIPPINE OVERSEAS EMPLOYMENT ADMINISTRATION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 90529 August 16, 1991 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 91551 August 16, 1991 - U.P. BOARD OF REGENTS, ET AL. v. JAINAL D. RASUL

  • G.R. No. 93719 August 16, 1991 - ARSENIO O. PELEO, JR. v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 95398 August 16, 1991 - MARIO R. MELCHOR v. COMMISSION ON AUDIT

  • G.R. No. 95574 August 16, 1991 - HADJI WAHIDA MUSA, ET AL. v. COROCOY D. MOSON

  • G.R. No. 95627 August 16, 1991 - EDWIN B. VILLANUEVA v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 95909 August 16, 1991 - UNILAND RESOURCES v. DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • G.R. No. 95915 August 16, 1991 - MITA PARDO DE TAVERA v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 95937 August 16, 1991 - FORTUNE TOBACCO CORPORATION v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 97237 August 16, 1991 - FILIPINAS PORT SERVICES, INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMM, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 97282 August 16, 1991 - PLARIDEL M. MINGOA v. LAND REGISTRATION ADMINISTRATOR

  • G.R. No. 98376 August 16, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BAYANI S. RIVERA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 70082 August 19, 1991 - RICKY WONG, ET AL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 80130 August 19, 1991 - BENJAMIN ABEJUELA v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 86523-24 August 19, 1991 - INTERNATIONAL HARVESTER MACLEOD, INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMM., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 48327 August 21, 1991 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 86774 August 21, 1991 - ENEDINA PRESLEY v. BEL-AIR VILLAGE ASSOCIATION, INC.

  • G.R. No. 92201 August 21, 1991 - RUDOLFO S. MAGAT, ET AL. v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 93030-31 August 21, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALFREDO D. ALEGADO

  • G.R. No. 95133 August 21, 1991 - ATLAS CONSOLIDATED MINING AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 59229 August 22, 1991 - HIJOS DE F. ESCAÑO, INC., ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 77373 August 22, 1991 - EDMUNDO C. JOCOM v. ANDRES C. REGALADO

  • G.R. No. 89558 August 22, 1991 - IZOLA L. AQUINO v. EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 91628 August 22, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MACARIO SANTITO, JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 95529 August 22, 1991 - MAGELLAN MANUFACTURING MARKETING CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 93832 August 23, 1991 - SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 73765 August 26, 1991 - HANG LUNG BANK, LTD. v. FELINTRIYE G. SAULOG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 45947 August 27, 1991 - MARIANO AVILA, ET AL. v. LAURO L. TAPUCAR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 82040 August 27, 1991 - BA FINANCE CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 91797 August 28, 1991 - WIDOWS AND ORPHANS ASSOCIATION, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.