Agoy vs NLRC : 112096 : January 30, 1996 : J Francisco : Third Division
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/jan1996/112096.htm
employees do not estop them from pursuing their claims arising from the unfair labor
practice of the employer. The basic reason for this is that such quitclaims and/or complete
releases are against public policy and therefore, null and void. The acceptance of
termination pay does not divest a laborer of the right to prosecute his employer for unfair
labor practice acts. (Cario vs. ACCFA, L-19808, September 29, 1966, 18 SCRA 183 and
other cases cited) In the Cario case, supra, the Supreme Court, speaking thru Justice
Sanchez, said: Acceptance of those benefits would not amount to estoppel. The reason is
plain. Employer and employee, obviously, do not stand on the same footing. The employer
drove the employee to the wall. The latter must have to get hold of money. Because, out of
job, he had to face the harsh necessities of life. He thus found himself in no position to resist
money proffered. His, then, is a case of adherence, not of choice. One thing sure, however,
is that petitioners did not relent their claim. They pressed it. They are deemed not to have
waived any of their rights. Renuntiationon praesumitur.
APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL
Prisciliano I. Casis for petitioner.
The Solicitor General for respondents.
DECISION
FRANCISCO, J.:
Initially, this suit was resolved in private respondents favor with the dismissal of petitioners
complaint for illegal dismissal against the former by the Philippine Overseas Employment
Administration (POEA) Adjudication Office [POEA Case No. (L) 90-05-516]. However, upon
appeal to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), the decision of the POEA was
reversed and judgment was instead rendered in favor of petitioner [NLRC CA No. 001713-91].
Still not satisfied, both parties filed their respective motions for reconsideration. In a resolution
dated September 22, 1993,1 the NLRC decided both motions against petitioner and in favor of
private respondents.
Petitioner is now before this Court through the instant petition for certiorari, assailing the
aforementioned Resolution of the NLRC which set aside its previous decision dated December
9, 19922 and reinstated the decision of the POEA dated April 10, 19913 dismissing petitioners
complaint for illegal dismissal. Grave abuse of discretion is imputed to respondent NLRC
consequent to the assailed resolution which petitioner maintains was rendered with evident
partiality and mental prejudice.
In his complaint filed with the POEA, petitioner Marcelino Agoy alleged that he applied for
overseas employment as civil engineer with private respondent Eureka Personnel Management
Services, Inc. (EUREKA), and was subsequently accepted to work as CE/Road Engineer for
private respondent Al-Khodari Establishment (AL-KHODARI) under a two year contract with a
basic salary of SR1,750.00 per month and food allowance of SR200.00 with free
accommodation.
On January 28, 1990, petitioner was deployed by respondent Eureka to Jubail, Saudi Arabia
through Exit Pass No. 2310220 P, mistakenly issued in the name of Belleli Saudi Heavy
Industries Ltd. as employer, under the category of Foreman at a basic monthly salary of
US$460.00, which terms were allegedly different from the original contract.
Thereafter, petitioner was deployed to Al-Khodaris maintenance project with the Royal
Commission in Jubail, Saudi Arabia as Road Foreman and not as CE/Road Engineer as initially
agreed upon. Left with no other choice, petitioner was forced to accept the position and started
to work on February 7, 1990.
Petitioner, having been accepted by the Royal Commission to work only as a Road
2 of 6
1/20/2016 8:48 PM