(b) While it is true that there are many employment disputes between the OFWs and their foreign employer that have been resolved through the SEnA process at the POLOs, it is equally true that OFWs can be placed at a great disadvantage during SEnA proceedings before the POLOs if the foreign employer has possession of the OFW’s passport and identity documents and is allowed to utilize the turnover of the OFW’s passport and identity documents and issuance of the exit visa as bargaining chips in the SEnA negotiations. SEnA proceedings before the POLOs puts greater pressure on the OFWs to accept the demands of the employer because the primary concern of OFWs in distress is to return home to their families in the Philippines. Their distress may be taken advantage of by the employer in order to secure a signed compromise agreement and a release, waiver and quitclaim in exchange for payment of unpaid wages, return of the OFWs passport and issuance of an exit visa. In many cases, it is the OFW himself/herself or OWWA that shoulders the cost of the plane fare to the Philippines should the foreign employer refuse to pay for it. At the very least, the SEADO should ensure, in case that the foreign employer has possession of the OFW’s passport and other identity documents, that the foreign employer shall immediately turn over possession of the same to the OFW without any conditions prior to the formal SEnA proceedings before the POLO. Should the employer and/or recruitment agency use the turnover of the OFW’s passport and identity documents and issuance of the exit visa as bargaining chips in the SEnA negotiations, such fact should be indicated in the minutes of the SEnA proceedings and the signed compromise agreement, if any, should not bar the OFW from filing a money claims case before the NLRC upon his/her return to the Philippines. (c) The compromise agreement and/or release, waiver and quitclaims executed by the OFW before the SEADO at the POLO effectively deprive/s the OFW the opportunity to file a money claims case before the NLRC upon return to the Philippines. It also weakens the efficacy of the joint and solidary liability of the foreign employer and recruitment agency. While it is true that Section 3, Rule V of DOLE Department Order No. 151-16 provided that settlement agreements executed during SEnA is not binding if it is established that the settlement agreement is contrary to law, morals, public order and public policy, the OFW must hurdle a higher legal bar in having the settlement agreement nullified in view of the legal presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties on the part of the SEADO. In the case of “Lorelei O. Iladan vs. La Suerte International Manpower Agency, Inc., and Debbie Lao,”108 the Supreme Court held: “In the instant case, Iladan executed a resignation letter in her own handwriting. She also accepted the amount of P35,000.00 as financial assistance and executed an Affidavit of Release, Waiver and Quitclaim and an Agreement, as settlement and waiver of any cause of action against respondents. The affidavit of waiver and the settlement were acknowledged/subscribed before Labor Attache Romulo on August 6, 2009, and duly authenticated by the Philippine Consulate. An affidavit of waiver duly acknowledged before a notary public is a public document which cannot 108 G. R. No. 203882, 11 January 2016 64