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:
"labor code of the philippines quit claim", "money claims in labor law of the philippines", "Philippine Labor Code quit claim", "PLDTquit_claim", "public policy against labor union in the philippines", "quitclaim cases philippines", "what is employee -employer relationship in labor code of the phils"