6/7/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly More importantly, private respondent later on executed a "Compromise Agreement with Quitclaim" before conciliator Judy A. Santillan. The Supreme Court in a litany of cases has ruled that a waiver or quitclaim is a valid and binding agreement between the parties, provided that it constitutes a credible and reasonable settlement, and that the one accomplishing it has done so voluntarily and with a full understanding of its import, to wit: 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 these cases, the law will step in to annul the questionable transaction. Indeed, there are legitimate waivers that represent a voluntary and reasonable settlement of laborer's claims which should be respected by the Court as the law between the parties. Where the person making the waiver has done so voluntarily, with a full understanding thereof, and the consideration for the quitclaim so credible and reasonable, the transaction must be recognized as being valid and binding undertaking, and may not later be disowned simply because of a change of mind. In this case, We hold and so rule that private respondent voluntarily executed the "Compromise Agreement with Quitclaim" discharging and releasing petitioners for any and all claims and liabilities attendant to or arising out of private respondent's application for overseas employment. Thus, there is no more legal controversy to speak of. All told, We hold and so rule that private respondent Wilfredo P. Asayas was not illegally dismissed. During the pendency of this petition, private respondent received the amounts of P848,810.53 and P230,509,50 representing the judgment award from the NLRC cashier as this Court did not issue a TRO. Thus, private respondent was able to receive the total amount of P1,079,320.03. Justice and equity demand that private respondent should return all amounts received with legal interest from date of receipt.[19] The CA denied the petitioner's motion for reconsideration on May 10, 2012.[20] Issues In this appeal, the petitioner insists that the CA seriously erred in granting the respondents' petition for certiorari despite the absence of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or in excess of jurisdiction on the part of the LA and the NLRC in issuing their decisions and resolutions, in clear derogation of the settled doctrine of conclusiveness of a final and immutable judgment.[21] In contrast, the respondents contend in their comment that the petitioner was not illegally dismissed considering that the POEA Standard Contract permitted the termination of his employment on account of the sale of the vessel.[22] elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/63833 6/10