4/29/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly In their position paper,[14] Poseidon and Van Doorn argued that the respondents had no cause of action to collect the remaining 50% of their unpaid wages. To Poseidon and Van Doorn, the respondents’ voluntary and knowing agreement to the settlement pay, which they confirmed when they signed the waivers and quitclaims, now effectively bars their claim. Poseidon and Van Doorn submitted before the LA the signed letter of acceptance, the waiver and quitclaim, and the cash vouchers to support their stance. In a Decision[15] dated May 2006, the LA dismissed the respondents’ complaint for lack of merit, declaring as valid and binding their waivers and quitclaims. The LA explained that while quitclaims executed by employees are generally frowned upon and do not bar them from recovering the full measure of what is legally due, excepted from this rule are the waivers knowingly and voluntarily agreed to by the employees, such as the waivers assailed by the respondents. Citing jurisprudence, the LA added that the courts should respect, as the law between the parties, those legitimate waivers and quitclaims that represent voluntary and reasonable settlement of employees’ claims. In the respondents’ case, this pronouncement holds more weight, as they understood fully well the contents of their waivers and knew the consequences of their acts. The LA did not give probative weight to the May 25, 2005 agreement considering that the entities which contracted the respondents’ services -Poseidon and Van Doorn — did not actively participate. Moreover, the LA noted that the respondents’ signed letter of acceptance superseded this agreement. The LA likewise considered the respondents’ belated filing of the complaint as a mere afterthought. Finally, the LA dismissed the issue of illegal dismissal, noting that the respondents already abandoned this issue in their pleadings. The respondents appealed[16] the LA’s decision before the NLRC. The Ruling of the NLRC By Resolution[17] dated December 29, 2006, the NLRC affirmed in toto the LA’s decision. As the LA did, the NLRC ruled that the respondents’ knowing and voluntary acquiescence to the settlement and their acceptance of the payments made bind them and effectively bar their claims. The NLRC also regarded the amounts the respondents received as settlement pay to be reasonable; despite the cessation of the fishing operations, the respondents were still paid their full wages from December 2004 to January 2005 and 50% of their wages from February 2005 until their repatriation in May 2005. On February 12, 2007, the NLRC denied[18] the respondents’ motion for reconsideration,[19] prompting them to file with the CA a petition for certiorari[20] under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. The Ruling of the CA In its September 30, 2008 Decision,[21] the CA granted the respondents’ petition and elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/55926 3/14