6/5/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly is still in force and effect"[91] cannot operate to transfer responsibility for the termination of the Contract of Employment to Alemaya University. Ultimately, it was she who terminated the Contract of Employment, and she cannot now claim that she was illegally dismissed. II. The Quitclaim and Release is valid. We also find that the NLRC did not commit grave abuse of discretion when it sustained the validity of the Quitclaim and Release executed by respondent in favor of petitioner. Where a person executing a waiver or quitclaim has done so voluntarily with a full understanding of its terms and conditions, coupled with the other person's payment of credible and reasonable consideration, we have no choice on the matter but to uphold the transaction as valid and binding.[92] In this case, respondent admits that she had a full understanding[93] of the terms and conditions of the Quitclaim and Release and voluntarily signed it. The bone of contention is the reasonableness of the amount of USD 900 as consideration for the waiver of all other purported claims against petitioner. According to respondent, this amount is minimal compared to the USD 5,400 in salaries to which she is entitled for the unexpired portion of the Contract of Employment.[94] To reiterate, the entitlement to the salaries for the unexpired portion of the employment contract obtains only for illegally dismissed employees. In view of our finding that respondent was not illegally dismissed, she is not entitled to such salaries. Respondent's contentions that she "was in dire need of cash"[95] and that "[s]he was forced by circumstances of need to sign the document"[96] do not qualify as coercion or undue influence that give rise to a vice of consent. "Dire necessity" is an acceptable ground to nullify quitclaims only if the consideration is unconscionably low and the employee was tricked into accepting it.[97] As aptly observed by the NLRC, respondent is a learned professional and a teacher no less. Anyone would be hard put to trick her into agreeing to something like signing a waiver. In this case, no proof was presented to show that petitioner had defrauded or deceived her into signing the document. Absent that proof, we are bound to uphold the Quitclaim and Release as valid and binding. III. Petitioner's appeal was perfected on time. According to respondent, the check issued by petitioner for the appeal bond was presented for payment only on the last day of the period for appeal from the Decision of the labor arbiter. Given that checks have the effect of payment only when they have elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/60760 12/20