4/10/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly did, we find the resignation letters “dubious,”[39] not only for having been lopsidedly worded to ensure that the employer is rendered free from any liability, but also for the odd coincidence that all the respondents had, at the same time, been confronted with urgent family problems so that they had to give up their employment and go home. The truth, as the respondents maintain, is that they cited family problems as reason out of fear that Modern Metal would not give them their salaries and their release papers. Only Era was bold enough to say the real reason for his resignation — to protest company policy. We likewise find the affidavits[40] of quitclaim and release which the respondents executed suspect. Obviously, the affidavits were prepared as a follow through of the respondents’ supposed voluntary resignation. Unlike the resignation letters, the respondents had no hand in the preparation of the affidavits. They must have been prepared by a representative of Modern Metal as they appear to come from a standard form and were apparently introduced for only one purpose — to lend credence to the resignation letters. In Modern Metal’s haste, however, to secure the respondents’ affidavits, they did not check on the model they used. Thus, Lumanta’s affidavit[41] mentioned a G & A International Manpower as his recruiting agency, an entity totally unknown to the respondents; the same thing is true for Era’s affidavit.[42] This confusion is an indication of the employer’s hurried attempt to avoid liability to the respondents. The respondents’ position is well-founded. The NLRC itself had the same impression, which we find in order and hereunder quote: The acts of respondents of requiring the signing of new contracts upon reaching the place of work and requiring employees to sign quitclaims before they are paid and repatriated to the Philippines are all too familiar stories of despicable labor practices which our employees are subjected to abroad. While it is true that quitclaims are generally given weight, however, given the facts of the case, We are of the opinion that the complainants-appellants executed the same under duress and fear that they will not be allowed to return to the Philippines.[43] Fourth. The compromise agreements (with quitclaim and release)[44] between the respondents and the agency before the POEA did not foreclose their employeremployee relationship claims before the NLRC. The respondents, except Ordovez and Enjambre, aver in this respect that they all paid for their own airfare when they returned home[45] and that the compromise agreements settled only their claim for refund of their airfare, but not their other claims.[46] Again, this submission has not been refuted or denied by the agency. On the surface, the compromise agreements appear to confirm the agency’s position, yet a closer examination of the documents would reveal their true nature. Copy of the compromise agreement is a standard POEA document, prepared in advance and readily elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/55155 10/15