4/29/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly Generally, this Court looks with disfavor at quitclaims executed by employees for being contrary to public policy.[44] Where the person making the waiver, however, has done so voluntarily, with a full understanding of its terms and with the payment of credible and reasonable consideration, we have no option but to recognize the transaction to be valid and binding.[45] We find the requisites for the validity of the respondents’ quitclaim present in this case. We base this conclusion on the following observations: First, the respondents acknowledged in their various pleadings, as well as in the very document denominated as "waiver and quitclaim," that they voluntarily signed the document after receiving the agreed settlement pay. Second, the settlement pay is reasonable under the circumstances, especially when contrasted with the amounts to which they were respectively entitled to receive as termination pay pursuant to Section 23 of the POEA-SEC and Article 283 of the Labor Code. The comparison of these amounts is tabulated below: Settlement Pay Termination Pay Joel S. Fernandez US$3134.33 US$1120.00 Artemio A. Booc US$2342.37 US$800.00 Felipe S. Saurin, Jr. US$2639.37 US$800.00 Tito R. Tamala US$2593.79 US$280.00 Thus, the respondents undeniably received more than what they were entitled to receive under the law as a result of the cessation of the fishing operations. Third, the contents of the waiver and quitclaim are clear, unequivocal and uncomplicated so that the respondents could fully understand the import of what they were signing and of its consequences.[46] Nothing in the records shows that what they received was different from what they signed for. Fourth, the respondents are mature and intelligent individuals, with college degrees, and are far from the naive and unlettered individuals they portrayed themselves to be. Fifth, while the respondents contend that they were coerced and unduly influenced in their decision to accept the settlement pay and to sign the waivers and quitclaims, the records of the case do not support this claim. The respondents’ claims that they were in "dire need for cash" and that they would not be paid anything if they would not sign do not constitute the coercion nor qualify as the undue influence contemplated by law sufficient to invalidate a waiver and quitclaim,[47] particularly in the circumstances attendant in this case. The records show that the respondents, along with their other elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/55926 9/14