This case has been cited 15 times or more.
|
2010-02-01 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| Our pronouncement in Periquet v. National Labor Relations Commission [16] on this matter cannot be more explicit: 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. [17] | |||||
|
2009-06-05 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| However, with respect to the second batch of quitclaims signed by 85 of the remaining 160 employees who were terminated following Hyatt's permanent closure,[70] we hold that these are valid and binding undertakings. The said documents indicate that the amount received by each of the employees represents a reasonable settlement of their monetary claims against petitioner and were even signed in the presence of a DOLE representative. A quitclaim, with clear and unambiguous contents and executed for a valid consideration received in full by the employee who signed the same, cannot be later invalidated because its signatory claims that he was pressured into signing it on account of his dire financial need. When it is shown that the person executing 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.[71] | |||||
|
2008-12-11 |
REYES, R.T., J. |
||||
| Unless there is a showing that the employee signed involuntarily or under duress, quitclaims and releases are upheld by this Court as the law between the parties.[21] If the agreement was voluntarily entered into by the employee, with full understanding of what he was doing, and represents a reasonable settlement of the claims of the employee, it is binding on the parties and may not be later disowned simply because of a change of mind.[22] In the case under review, the quitclaims and releases signed by petitioners stated:That for and in consideration of the sum of FIFTY-THREE THOUSAND PESOS (P53,000.00)[23] in settlement of my/our claim/s as financial assistance and/or gratuitously given by my/our employer receipt of which is hereby acknowledge to my/our complete and full satisfaction, I/we hereby release and discharge the above respondent and/or its officers from any and all claims by way of wages, overtime pay, differential pay, or otherwiseasmaybedueme/usincident to my/our past employment with said establishment. I/we hereby state further that I/we have no more claim, right or action of whatsoever nature whether past, present or contingent against the said respondent and/or its officers.[24] (Emphasis supplied) As correctly observed by the NLRC, the language employed by the above quitclaims and releases indicates in no uncertain terms that petitioners voluntarily and freely acknowledged receipt of full satisfaction of all claims against respondents.Thus, the quitclaims effectively barred petitioners from questioning their dismissal. | |||||
|
2008-11-28 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| Periquet v. National Labor Relations Commission[53] for valid quitclaims and waivers. | |||||
|
2008-10-17 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| We likewise uphold the CA's finding that petitioners voluntarily executed and signed a release and quitclaim after receiving their separation package, acknowledging full and final payment of all benefits that they may be entitled to in relation to their employment. The validity of quitclaims executed by laborers has long been recognized in this jurisdiction. In Periquet v. National Labor Relations Commission,[23] this Court ruled that not all waivers and quitclaims are invalid as against public policy. If the agreement was voluntarily entered into and represents a reasonable settlement of the claims of the employee, it is binding on the parties and may not later be disowned simply because of a change of mind. Such legitimate waivers resulting from voluntary settlements of laborer's claims should be treated and upheld as the law between the parties. | |||||
|
2007-10-26 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| This Court had also outlined in Land and Housing Development Corporation, citing Periquet v. NLRC,[64] the parameters for valid compromise agreements, waivers, and quitclaims: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. (Emphasis supplied.) | |||||
|
2007-03-28 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| We have clarified the standards for determining the validity of quitclaim or waiver in the case of Periquet v. National Labor Relations Commission,[44] to wit: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. x x x. | |||||
|
2007-02-06 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| In Periquet v. National Labor Relations Commission,[34] the guideposts to determine validity of affidavits of desistance were set, thus: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. x x x. In the instant case, we agree with both the NLRC and the Court of Appeals that the Affidavits of Desistance deserve scant consideration. | |||||
|
2006-08-29 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| It is true that quitclaims and waivers are oftentimes frowned upon and are considered as ineffective in barring recovery for the full measure of the worker's right and that acceptance of the benefits therefrom does not amount to estoppel.[20] The reason is plain. Employer and employee, obviously do not stand on the same footing.[21] However, 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 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 the 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,[22] as in this case. | |||||
|
2006-08-29 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| In Periquet v. National Labor Relations Commission,[13] however, we clarified the standards for determining the validity of a waiver, release and quitclaim as follows: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. . . . | |||||
|
2006-06-27 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| That I know that upon receipt of the above amount I waive all claims I may have for damage against the vessel's owners and her agents, insurers, charterers, operators [sic] underwriters, p.i. clube [sic], shipper and all other persons in interest therein or thereon, under all and all other countries.[30] From the document itself, the element of voluntariness in its execution is evident. Petitioner also appears to have fully understood the contents of the document he was signing, as the important provision thereof had been relayed to him in Filipino. Thus, the document also states: Na alam ko na pagkatanggap ko nang halagang ito ay pinawawalang bisa at iniuurong ko nang lahat [ng] aking interes, karapatan, at anumang reklamo o damyos laban sa barko, may-ari nito, mga ahente, seguro at lahat-lahat ng may kinalaman sa barkong ito maging dito sa Pilipinas o anumang bansa.[31] Likewise, the US$405.00 which he received in consideration of the quitclaim is a credible and reasonable amount. He was truly entitled thereto, no more and no less, given that he was sick for only less than a month or from November 15, 2000 to December 13, 2000. The same would not, therefore, invalidate the said quitclaim. As we held in Periquet v. National Labor Relations Commission:[32] 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.[33] As a final note, let it be emphasized that the constitutional policy to provide full protection to labor is not meant to be a sword to oppress employers. The commitment of this Court to the cause of labor does not prevent us from sustaining the employer when it is in the right.[34] | |||||
|
2005-07-14 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| While generally, the Court looks, at times, with askance at waivers and quitclaims for being repugnant to public policy, yet, Periquet v. National Labor Relations Commission[19] clearly delineated the parameters when such waivers and quitclaims command judicial imprimatur: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 wrangled 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. | |||||
|
2005-04-15 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| We reiterate what was stated in the case of Periquet v. NLRC [39] that: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. …[40] | |||||
|
2004-11-25 |
YNARES-SATIAGO, J. |
||||
| We do not agree. To be sure, 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. We have clarified the standards for determining the validity of quitclaim or waiver in the case of Periquet v. National Labor Relations Commission,[23] to wit: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. | |||||
|
2003-06-10 |
BELLOSILLO, J. |
||||
| As to whether petitioner Nestor Romero should be properly impleaded in the instant case, we only need to follow the doctrinal guidance set by Periquet v. NLRC[13] which outlines the parameters for valid compromise agreements, waivers and quitclaims | |||||