This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2014-02-05 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| In Goodrich Manufacturing Corporation, v. Ativo,[30] the Court reiterated the standards that must be observed in determining whether a waiver and quitclaim had been validly executed: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. | |||||
|
2013-07-15 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| Notably, the Release and Quitclaim represents a reasonable and fair settlement of respondents' claims. Under Article 283 of the Labor Code, the employers are required to pay employees separated from employment by reason of redundancy at least one (1) month pay or at least one (1) month pay for every year of service, whichever is higher.[33] Here, respondents received 100% of their one (1) month basic pay for every year of service, plus a premium ranging from 20% to 85% of such basic pay for every year of service (depending on the number of years in service), as separation pay. In Goodrich Manufacturing Corporation, v. Ativo,[34] this Court declared that | |||||
|
2012-01-18 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| In Goodrich Manufacturing Corporation, v. Ativo,[25] this Court reiterated the standards that must be observed in determining whether a waiver and quitclaim has been validly executed: 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.[26] (emphasis supplied) | |||||