Lastly, we find that petitioner had already signed a valid quitclaim, discharge and release which bars the present action. This Court has held that not all quitclaims are per se invalid or against public policy, except (1) where there is clear proof that the waiver was wangled from an unsuspecting or gullible person, or (2) where the terms of settlement are unconscionable on their face. In this case, there is no showing that petitioner was coerced into signing the quitclaim. In her sworn quitclaim, she freely declared that she received to her full satisfaction all that is due her by reason of her employment and that she was voluntarily releasing respondent Ateneo from all claims in relation to her employment. Nothing on the face of her quitclaim has been shown as unconscionable.
Topics in this post:
"quit claim labor philippines", "philipine labor laws quit claim vs legal cases", "philippines labor quit claim requirement", "philippines labor quitclaim", "phippines labor law are quit claims mandatory?", "quit claim does it valid in the Philippine law?", "quit claim labor policy", "Quit claim philippines Labor"