Julita M. Aldovino V. Gold, GR No. 200811, Jun 19, 2019: Case Doctrines

JULITA M. ALDOVINO v.
GOLD,
GR No. 200811, Jun 19, 2019
CASE DOCTRINES:
I. Respondents claim that the Compromise

Agreement containing Affidavit of Quitclaim and
Release barred petitioners from holding them liable
for claims.
1. Waivers and quitclaims executed by employees are generally

frowned upon for being contrary to public policy. This is based on
the recognition that employers and employees do not stand on
equal footing. 1
2. In Land and Housing Development Corporation v. Esquillo:2
"We have heretofore explained that the reason why

quitclaims are commonly frowned upon as contrary to
public policy, and why they are held to be ineffective to bar
claims for the full measure of the workers' legal rights, is
the fact that the employer and the employee obviously do
not stand on the same footing. The employer drove the
employee to the wall. The latter must have to get hold of
money. Because, out of a job, he had to face the harsh
necessities of life. He thus found himself in no position to
resist money proffered. His, then, is a case of adherence,
not of choice. One thing sure, however, is that petitioners
did not relent on their claim. They pressed it. They are
deemed not to have waived any of their rights. Renuntiatio
non praesumitur."
3. We have more trenchantly declared that quitclaims and/or

1
Sicangco v. National Labor Relations Commission, 305 Phil. 102, 108 (1994) [Per J.
Cruz, First Division].
2
508 Phil. 478 (2005) [Per J. Panganiban, Third Division].
complete releases executed by the employees do not estop them
from pursuing their claims arising from unfair labor practices of
the employer. The basic reason for this is that such quitclaims
and/or complete releases are against public policy and, therefore,
null and void. The acceptance of termination does not divest a
laborer of the right to prosecute his employer for unfair labor
practice acts.3
4. Quitclaims do not bar employees from filing labor complaints and

demanding benefits to which they are legally entitled. 4
5. The law does not recognize agreements that result in compensation

less than what is mandated by law. These quitclaims do not prevent
employees from subsequently claiming benefits to which they are
legally entitled. 5
6. In Am-Phil Food Concepts, Inc. v. Padilla, 6 this Court held that

quitclaims do not negate charges for illegal dismissal:
The law looks with disfavor upon quitclaims and releases

by employees pressured into signing by unscrupulous
employers minded to evade legal responsibilities. As a rule,
deeds of release or quitclaim cannot bar employees from
demanding benefits to which they are legally entitled or
from contesting the legality of their dismissal. The
acceptance of those benefits would not amount to
estoppel. The amounts already received by the retrenched
employees as consideration for signing the quitclaims
should, however, be deducted from their respective
monetary awards. 7 Here, the parties entered into the
Compromise Agreement to terminate the case for
underpayment of wages, which petitioners had previously
3
Id. at 487 citing Marcos v. National Labor Relations Commission, 318 Phil. 172
(1995) [Per J. Regalado, Second Division].
4
Goodyear Philippines, Inc. v. Angus, 746 Phil. 668 (2014) [Per J. Del Castillo, Second
Division] citing Solgus Corporation v. Court of Appeals, 543 Phil. 483 (2007) [Per J.
Chico-Nazario, Third Division].
5
Fuentes v. National Labor Relations Commission, 249 Phil. 712 (1988) [Per J. Paras,
En Banc].
6
744 Phil. 674 (2014) [Per J. Leonen, Second Division].
7
Id. at 692 citing F. F. Marine Corporation v. National Labor Relations Commission, 495
Phil. 140 (2005) [Per J. Tinga, Second Division].
filed against respondents in Taiwan. The object and
foundation of the Compromise Agreement was to settle the
payment of salaries and overtime premiums to which
petitioners were legally entitled. Hence, it should not be
construed as a restriction on petitioners' right to prosecute
other legitimate claims they may have against
respondents.
II. Respondents further justify the dismissal by

arguing that petitioners voluntarily severed their
employment when they signed the Compromise
Agreement.
1. Under the Labor Code, employers may only terminate employment
for a just or authorized cause and after complying with procedural due
process requirements. Articles 297 and 300 of the Labor Code
enumerate the causes of employment termination either by employers
or employees:
ARTICLE 297. [282] Termination by employer. — An employer

may terminate an employment for any of the following causes:
(a) Serious misconduct or willful disobedience by the

employee of the lawful orders of his employer or representative
in connection with his work;
(b) Gross and habitual neglect by the employee of his duties;
(c) Fraud or willful breach by the employee of the trust
reposed in him by his employer or duly authorized
representative;
(d) Commission of a crime or offense by the employee
against the person of his employer or any immediate member of
his family or his duly authorized representatives; and
(e) Other causes analogous to the foregoing.
....
ARTICLE 300. [285] Termination by employee. — (a) An
employee may terminate without just cause the employee-
employer relationship by serving a written notice on the
employer at least one (1) month in advance. The employer upon
whom no such notice was served may hold the employee liable
for damages.
(b) An employee may put an end to the relationship without
serving any notice on the employer for any of the following just
causes:
1. Serious insult by the employer or his representative on
the honor and person of the employee;
2. Inhuman and unbearable treatment accorded the

employee by the employer or his representative;
3. Commission of a crime or offense by the employer or his

representative against the person of the employee or any of the
immediate members of his family; and
4. Other causes analogous to any of the foregoing.
2. In illegal dismissal cases, the burden of proof that employees were

validly dismissed rests on the employers. Failure to discharge this
burden means that the dismissal is illegal. 8
3. A valid dismissal must comply with substantive and procedural due

process: there must be a valid cause and a valid procedure. The
employer must comply with the two (2)-notice requirement, while the
employee must be given an opportunity to be heard.9
4. As a consequence of the illegal dismissal, petitioners are also

entitled to moral damages, exemplary damages, and attorney's fees. In
Torreda v. Investment and Capital Corporation of the Philippines:10
"Moral damages are recoverable when the dismissal of an

employee is attended by bad faith or fraud or constitutes
an act oppressive to labor, or is done in a manner contrary
to good morals, good customs or publi0c policy. Exemplary
damages, on the other hand, are recoverable when the
dismissal was done in a wanton, oppressive, or malevolent
manner."
III. Section 7 of Republic Act No. 10022, which

reinstated the three (3)-month cap, has the force and
effect of law.
1. In Serrano, this Court ruled that the clause "or for three (3) months
for every year of the unexpired term, whichever is less" under Section
8
Industrial Personnel & Management Services, Inc. v. De Vera, 782 Phil. 230, 252 (2016) [Per J. Mendoza,
Second Division].
9
Skippers United Pacific, Inc. v. Doza, 681 Phil. 427 (2012) [Per J. Carpio, Second Division].
10
G.R. No. 229881, September 5, 2018, <http://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/64603> [Per J. Gesmundo, Third
Division].
10 [11] of the Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act is
unconstitutional for violating the equal protection and substantive due
process clauses.
2. In Sameer Overseas Placement Agency, Inc. v. Cabiles,[ 12] this Court

was confronted with the question of the constitutionality of the
reinstated clause in Republic Act No. 10022. Reiterating our finding
in Serrano, we ruled that "limiting wages that should be recovered by
an illegally dismissed overseas worker to three months is both a
violation of due process and the equal protection clauses of the
Constitution."13
3. Putting a cap on the money claims of certain overseas workers does

not increase the standard of protection afforded to them. On the other
hand, foreign employers are more incentivized by the reinstated clause
to enter into contracts of at least a year because it gives them more
flexibility to violate our overseas workers' rights. Their liability for
arbitrarily terminating overseas workers is decreased at the expense of
the workers whose rights they violated. Meanwhile, these overseas
workers who are impressed with an expectation of a stable job
overseas for the longer contract period disregard other opportunities
only to be terminated earlier. They are left with claims that are less
than what others in the same situation would receive. The reinstated
clause, therefore, creates a situation where the law meant to protect
them makes violation of rights easier and simply benign to the violator.
14
11
Republic Act No. 8042 (1995), sec. 10 provides:
SECTION 10. Monetary Claims. — Notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary, the Labor Arbiters of the National Labor
Relations Commission (NLRC) shall have the original and exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide, within ninety (90) calendar days
after the filing of the complaint, the claims arising out of an employer-employee relationship or by virtue of any law or contract
involving Filipino workers for overseas deployment including claims for actual, moral, exemplary and other forms of damages.
The liability of the principal/employer and the recruitment/placement agency for any and all claims under this section shall be joint
and several. This provision shall be incorporated in the contract for overseas employment and shall be a condition precedent for its
approval. The performance bond to be filed by the recruitment/placement agency, as provided by law, shall be answerable for all
monetary claims or damages that may be awarded to the workers. If the recruitment/placement agency is a juridical being, the
corporate officers and directors and partners as the case may be, shall themselves be jointly and solidarity liable with the corporation
or partnership for the aforesaid claims and damages.
Such liabilities shall continue during the entire period or duration of the employment contract and shall not be affected by any
substitution, amendment or modification made locally or in a foreign country of the said contract.
Any compromise/amicable settlement or voluntary agreement on monetary claims inclusive of damages under this section shall be
paid within four (4) months from the approval of the settlement by the appropriate authority.
In case of termination of overseas employment without just, valid or authorized cause as defined by law or contract, the worker shall
be entitled to the full reimbursement of his placement fee with interest at twelve percent (12%) per annum, plus his salaries for the
unexpired portion of his employment contract or for three (3) months for every year of the unexpired term, whichever is less.
12
740 Phil. 403 (2014) [Per J. Leonen, En Banc].
13
Id. at 434.
14
Id. at 439.
4. A statute declared unconstitutional "confers no rights; it
imposes no duties; it affords no protection; it creates no office; it
is inoperative as if it has not been passed at all."15
Incorporating a similarly worded provision in a subsequent legislation

does not cure its unconstitutionality. Without any discemable change in
the circumstances warranting a reversal, this Court will not hesitate to
strike down the same provision.
5. As such, we reiterate our ruling in Sameer that the reinstated

clause in Section 7 of Republic Act No. 10022 has no force and
effect of law. It is unconstitutional.16
15
Yap v. Thenamaris Ship's Management, 664 Phil. 614, 627 (2011) [Per J. Nachura, Second Division].
16
Sameer Overseas Placement Agency, Inc. v. Cabiles, 740 Phil. 403 (2014) [Per J. Leonen, En Banc].

Julita M. Aldovino V. Gold, GR No. 200811, Jun 19, 2019: Case Doctrines

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Julita M. Aldovino V. Gold, GR No. 200811, Jun 19, 2019: Case Doctrines

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

JULITA M. ALDOVINO v.

I. Respondents claim that the Compromise

1. Waivers and quitclaims executed by employees are generally

2. In Land and Housing Development Corporation v. Esquillo:2

"We have heretofore explained that the reason why

3. We have more trenchantly declared that quitclaims and/or

4. Quitclaims do not bar employees from filing labor complaints and

5. The law does not recognize agreements that result in compensation

6. In Am-Phil Food Concepts, Inc. v. Padilla, 6 this Court held that

The law looks with disfavor upon quitclaims and releases

II. Respondents further justify the dismissal by

ARTICLE 297. [282] Termination by employer. — An employer

(a) Serious misconduct or willful disobedience by the

2. Inhuman and unbearable treatment accorded the

3. Commission of a crime or offense by the employer or his

4. Other causes analogous to any of the foregoing.

2. In illegal dismissal cases, the burden of proof that employees were

3. A valid dismissal must comply with substantive and procedural due

4. As a consequence of the illegal dismissal, petitioners are also

"Moral damages are recoverable when the dismissal of an

III. Section 7 of Republic Act No. 10022, which

2. In Sameer Overseas Placement Agency, Inc. v. Cabiles,[ 12] this Court

3. Putting a cap on the money claims of certain overseas workers does

Incorporating a similarly worded provision in a subsequent legislation

5. As such, we reiterate our ruling in Sameer that the reinstated

You might also like