The Receipt and Quitclaim executed by respondent lacks the elements of voluntariness and free will and, therefore, does not absolve petitioners from liability in paying him the sickness wages and other monetary claims.   Although respondent avers that his signature on the said quitclaim was a forgery, the CA relied on the factual findings of the labor arbiter and the NLRC that gave credence to it. Thus, the matter to be resolved would be whether the Receipt and Quitclaim can be considered substantial compliance to the contractual obligation by petitioners under the standard employment contract.   In More Maritime Agencies, Inc. v. NLRC,26[26] the Court ruled that the law does not consider as valid any agreement to receive less compensation than what a worker is entitled to recover nor prevent him from demanding benefits to which he is entitled. Quitclaims executed by the employees are thus commonly frowned upon as contrary to public policy and ineffective to bar claims for the full measure of the worker’s legal rights, considering the economic disadvantage of the employee and the inevitable pressure upon him by financial necessity. Thus, it is never enough to assert that the parties have voluntarily entered into such a quitclaim. There are other requisites, to wit: (a) that there was no fraud or deceit on the part of any of the parties; (b) that the consideration of the quitclaim is credible and reasonable; and (c) that the contract is not contrary to law, public order, public policy, morals or good customs, or prejudicial to a third person with a right recognized by law. 26[26] 366 Phil. 646, 653-654 (1999).