The client did not receive ALL remunerations mandated by law as stipulated by the

Respondent Agency on its Position Paper.

The said hand written resignation letter was executed by the Petitioner as a precedent
for her to be entitled of all the benefits guaranteed by the law such as her Retirement
Benefits. The forced resignation letter was instructed by the Admin in the person of
Galahad P. Lagahit for her to be issued a Certificate of Employment instead of letting
the Complainant execute a retirement letter. Such act is indeed a manifestation that the
Respondent Agency took advantage of the situation to get away with their responsibility
in providing for the retirement benefits of the Complainant and other monetary and
statutory rights and benefits indicated in the law.

The Resignation Letter and Voluntary Quitclaim argument of the Respondent Agency is
of no moment and cannot be given merit. The fact that the Respondent Agency was the
one who dictated the complainant to execute a Resignation Letter and Quitclaim
debunks the argument of the Respondent Agency that such Quitclaim and Resignation
letter is voluntary and is therefore not based upon the complainant’s will. The
Complainant was deceived on the false pretenses by making her believe that she will
not be getting all her benefits without executing the Resignation Letter and Quitclaim.

Moreover, the requisites for a valid quitclaim are: 1) that there was no fraud or deceit on
the part of any of the parties; 2) that the consideration for the quitclaim is credible and
reasonable; and 3) that the contract is not contrary to law, public order, public policy,
morals or good customs or prejudicial to a third person with a right recognized by law. (
Francisco Soriano, Jr. vs. NLRC et al., G.R. No. 165594 April 23, 2007).

In other words, employees, must not have been deceived in signing, or taken advantage
of their vulnerability and ignorance of the law.

Thus, the fact that there was deception employed, that an unreasonable consideration
was stipulated, and that such contract is against law and public policy, the aforesaid
quitclaim is invalid and does not bind the parties.

Generally, the law looks with disfavor on quitclaims and releases by employees who
have been inveigled or pressured into signing them by unscrupulous employers seeking
to evade their legal responsibilities and frustrate just claims of employees. They are
frowned upon as contrary to public policy. A quitclaim is ineffective in barring recovery
of the full measure of a worker's rights, and the acceptance of benefits therefrom does
not amount to estoppel.
 The reason is laid down in Lopez Sugar Corporation v. Federation of Free
Workers:

The reason is plain. Employer and 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 the job, he had to face
harsh necessities of life. He thus found himself in no position to resist
money proferred. His, then, is a case of adherence, not of choice. One
thing sure, however, is that petitioners did not relent their claim. They
pressed it. They are deemed not to have waived any of their
rights. Renuntiatio non praesumitur.

Moreover, the Respondent Agency, not the Petitioner, have the burden of proving that
the quitclaim was voluntarily entered into. In previous cases, we have considered,
among others, the educational attainment of the
employees concerned in upholding the validity of the quitclaims which
they have executed in favor of their employers. However, in Becton Dickinson Phils.,
Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission,] we held:

There is no nexus between intelligence, or even the position which the

employee held in the company when it concerns the pressure which the
employer may exert upon the free will of the employee who is asked to
sign a release and quitclaim. A lowly employee or a sales manager, as in
the present case, who is confronted with the same dilemma of whether
signing a release and quitclaim and accept what the company offers them,
or refusing to sign and walk out without receiving anything, may do
succumb to the same pressure, being very well aware that it is going to
take quite a while before he can recover whatever he is entitled to,
because it is only after a protracted legal battle starting from the labor
arbiter level, all the way to this Court, can he receive anything at all. The
Court understands that such a risk of not receiving anything whatsoever,
coupled with the probability of not immediately getting any gainful
employment or means of livelihood in the meantime, constitutes enough
pressure upon anyone who is asked to sign a release and quitclaim in
exchange of some amount of money which may be way below what he
may be entitled to based on company practice and policy or by law.

It is worth mentioning that the respondents are rank-and-file employees. They are
simple folks who rely on their work for the daily sustenance of their respective families.
Absent any convincing proof of voluntariness in the submission of the documentary
requirements and in the execution of the quitclaim, we cannot simply assume that
respondents were not subjected to the very same pressure mentioned in Becton.
Furthermore, the fact that respondents filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against
petitioners completely negates their claim that respondents voluntarily retired. To note,
respondents vigorously pursued this case against petitioners, all the way up to this
Court. Without doubt, this is a manifestation that respondents had no intention of
relinquishing their employment, wholly incompatible to petitioners' assertion that
respondents voluntarily retired. (UNIVERSAL ROBINA SUGAR MILLING
CORPORATION (URSUMCO) and/orRENATO CABATI, as Manager, VS. AGRIPINO
CABALLEDA and ALEJANDRO CADALIN, G.R. No. 156644, July 28, 2008)

In the present case, the Complainant has been working with the said agency as a lady
guard for almost two decades and dedicated her services for her to support her daily
needs as well as to provide for her family. Her willingness to work for the Respondent
Company for 19 years until her retirement age of 60 does prove her loyalty and
dedication to her job. And for her to reap the fruits of her long years of service thru the
mandated Retirement Benefits under the law, the Complainant redressed to avail such
statutory right upon reaching her retirement age. Since the Respondent maneuvered
and evaded such rightful benefit which the complainant is entitled to in the guise of her
feigned resignation. That such act of the Respondent is a clear showing of influencing
the decision of the Complainant in signing the aforementioned documents and making
her act involuntary in all aspects. The fight of Complainant to avail for her Retirement
Benefits and other reliefs prayed for in this case can be leaned on the fact that she does
not have any intention to resign and that she felt deprived of her benefits and took
advantage of her current state as a retiree. Hence, it is a well settled rule under
Universal Robina Sugar Milling Corporation (URSUMCO) and/or Renato Cabati vs.
Agripino Caballeda and Alejandro Cadalin:

It is also worthy to note, that the intention of the Complainant is to avail for her
Retirement Benefits and that such contrived resignation letter shall be deemed to be her
Retirement Notice to her company. The actuations of the Respondent in letting the
Complainant sign a resignation letter is a blatant elusion of granting the Retirement
Benefits to the complainant.