4/29/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly 2. Service of written notice on the affected employees and on the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) at least one (1) month prior to the effectivity of the termination; and 3. Payment to the affected employees of termination or separation pay equivalent to one (1) month pay or at least one-half (1/2) month pay for every year of service, whichever is higher.[42] We are sufficiently convinced, based on the records, that Van Doorn’s termination of the respondents’ employment arising from the cessation of its fishing operations complied with the above requisites and is thus valid. We observe that the records of the case do not show that Van Doorn ever intended to defeat the respondents’ rights under our labor laws when it undertook its decision to close its fishing operations on November 20, 2004. From this date until six months after, the undertaking was at a complete halt. That Van Doorn and its partners might have suffered losses during the six-month period is not entirely remote. Yet, Van Doorn did not immediately repatriate the respondents or hire another group of seafarers to replace the respondents in a move to resume its fishing operations. Quite the opposite, the respondents, although they were no longer rendering any service or doing any work, still received their full salary for November 2004 up to January 2005. In fact, from February 2005 until they were repatriated to the Philippines in May 2005, the respondents still received wages, albeit half of their respective basic monthly salary rate. Had Van Doorn intended to stop its fishing operations simply to terminate the respondents’ employment, it would have immediately repatriated the respondents to the Philippines soon after, in order that it may hire other seafarers to replace them — a possibility that did not take place. Considering therefore the absence of any indication that Van Doorn stopped its fishing operations to circumvent the protected rights of the respondents, our courts have no basis to question the reason that might have impelled Van Doorn to reach its closure decision.[43] In sum, since Poseidon ceased its fishing operations in the valid exercise of its management prerogative, Section 10 of R.A. No. 8042 finds no application. Consequently, we find that the CA erroneously imputed grave abuse of discretion on the part of the NLRC in not applying Section 10 of R.A. No. 8042 and in awarding the respondents the unpaid portion of their full salaries. The waivers and quitclaims signed by the respondents are valid and binding We cannot support the CA’s act of giving greater evidentiary weight to the May 25, 2005 agreement over the respondents’ waivers and quitclaims; not only do we find the latter documents to be reasonable and duly executed, we also find that they superseded the May 25, 2005 agreement. elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/55926 8/14