6/7/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly essential. Thus, the when she of official The Agreement likewise bears the signature of Conciliator-Mediator Diaz. signatures of these officials sufficiently prove that Iladan was duly assisted signed the waiver and settlement. Concededly, the presumption of regularity acts may be rebutted by affirmative evidence of irregularity or failure to perform a duty.[28] In this case, no such evidence was presented. Besides, "[t]he Court 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."[29] Absent any extant and clear proof of the alleged coercion and threats Iladan allegedly received from respondents that led her to terminate her employment relations with respondents, it can be concluded that Iladan resigned voluntarily. No placement fee was paid. Anent Iladan's claim of payment of placement fee, the Court finds no sufficient evidence that payment had been made. Iladan and her mother's affidavit attesting to its payment are self-serving evidence and deserve no weight at all. Neither did the mortgage loan and deed of transfer executed in favor of third persons as well as the letter from Nippon prove that placement fee was paid to respondents. These documents merely show that Iladan is indebted to certain persons and to Nippon; however, they do not prove that these indebtedness were incurred in connection with the placement fee she purportedly paid to respondents. As aptly ruled by the CA, Iladan has the burden of proving, with clear and convincing evidence, the fact of payment. All told, the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC erred in finding that petitioner was illegally dismissed as no substantial evidence was adduced to sustain this finding. As shown above, Iladan failed to substantiate her claim of illegal dismissal for there was no proof that her resignation was tainted with coercion and threats, as she strongly claims. "Although the Supreme Court has, more often than not, been inclined towards the workers and has upheld their cause in their conflicts with the employers, such inclination has not blinded it to the rule that justice is in every case for the deserving, to be dispensed in the light of the established facts and applicable law and doctrine." [30] WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED. The May 16, 2012 Decision and October 4, 2012 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 119903 are AFFIRMED. SO ORDERED. Carpio, (Chairperson), Brion, Mendoza, and Leonen, JJ., concur. [1] Rollo, pp. 3-33. [2] CA rollo, pp. 388-402; penned by Associate Justice Franchito N. Diamante and concurred in by Associate Justices Jane Aurora C. Lantion and Rodil V. Zalameda. elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/61554 6/8