This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2014-11-12 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| The release and quitclaim signed by Angus cannot be used by petitioners to legalize the denial of Angus' rightful claims. As aptly observed by the CA, the terms of the quitclaim authorizes Angus to receive less than what she is legally entitled to. "Under prevailing jurisprudence, x x x a quitclaim cannot bar an employee from demanding benefits to which he is legally entitled."[43] It was held to be "ineffective in barring claims for the full measure of the worker's rights and the acceptance of benefits therefrom does not amount to estoppel".[44] Moreover, release and quitclaims are often looked upon with disfavor when the waiver was not done voluntarily by employees who were pressured into signing them by unscrupulous employers seeking to evade their obligations.[45] | |||||
|
2009-04-30 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| As to the belated plea of respondents for attorney's fees, suffice it to state that parties who have not appealed cannot obtain from the appellate court any affirmative reliefs other than those granted, if any, in the decision of the lower tribunal.[18] Since respondents did not file a motion for reconsideration of the appellate court's decision, much less appeal therefrom, they can advance only such arguments as may be necessary to defeat petitioner's claims or to uphold the appealed decision, and cannot ask for a modification of the judgment in their favor in order to obtain other positive reliefs.[19] | |||||