This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2005-11-11 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| We do not agree. It bears stressing that at the time of the execution of the release and quitclaim, the case filed by private respondents against petitioners was already dismissed by the Labor Arbiter and it was pending appeal before the NLRC. Private respondents could have executed the release and quitclaim because of a possibility that their appeal with the NLRC may not be successful. Since there was yet no decision rendered by the NLRC when the quitclaims were executed, it could not be said that the amount of the settlement is unconscionable. In any event, no deception has been established that would justify the annulment of private respondents quitclaims.[27] In Mercer vs. NLRC,[28] we held that:In Samaniego v. NLRC, we ruled that: "A quitclaim executed in favor of a company by an employee amounts to a valid and binding compromise agreement between them." | |||||