Saturday, July 07, 2007 Quit claim By Dominador A. Almirante Labor case digest
RESPONDENTS Felicisimo Cuesta and Wilfredo Gonzaga were seafarers hired through petitioner Oriental Shipmanagement Co. Inc., a recruitment agency. After serving only for few months of their one-year contract, they were repatriated to the Philippines.
Earlier, they were made to sign a so-called “letter of indemnity,” wherein they declared, among others, that their contract of employment was terminated by mutual agreement and that they have no claim whatsoever the petitioner. Was the letter of indemnity voluntarily executed?
The law is solicitous of the welfare of employees because they stand on unequal footing with their employers and are usually left at the mercy of the latter. This is especially true of Filipino migrant workers who, alone in a foreign country, might have no adequate alternative resources even for their own personal daily needs.
Hence, quit claims signed by our migrant workers, such as the letters of indemnity in the instant case, are viewed with strong disfavor. Public policy dictates that they be presumed to have been executed at the behest of the employer. It is the employer’s duty to prove that such quit claims were voluntary (Salonga versus National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 118120, Feb. 23, 1996, 254 SCRA 111, 114).
The employee’s acknowledgment of his termination with nary aa protest or objection is not enough to satisfy the requirement of voluntariness on his part. (Oriental Shipmanagement Co. Inc. versus Court of Appeals, et. al., G.R. No. 153750, Jan. 25, 2006).
