This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2005-08-09 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| Contrary to the Court of Appeals' ruling, petitioners are not precluded from questioning the validity of their dismissal. The Court finds credence in petitioners' claim that economic necessity constrained them to accept Philex's monetary offer and sign the Deeds of Release and Quitclaim.[41] That petitioners are supervisors and not rank-and-file employees does not make them less susceptible to financial offers, faced as they were with the prospect of unemployment. This Court has allowed supervisory employees to seek payment of benefits[42] and a manager to sue for illegal dismissal[43] even though, for a consideration, they executed deeds of quitclaims releasing their employers from liability. | |||||