8/26/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly .... This public policy should be borne in mind in this case because to allow foreign employers to determine for and by themselves whether an overseas contract worker may be dismissed on the ground of illness would encourage illegal or arbitrary pre-termination of employment contracts.[44] (Citation omitted) Indeed, because petitioners' employment contracts were executed in the Philippines, Philippine laws govern them. Respondents, then, must answer and be held liable under our laws. I Respondents claim that the Compromise Agreement barred petitioners from holding them liable for claims. This is outright erroneous. Waivers and quitclaims executed by employees are generally frowned upon for being contrary to public policy. This is based on the recognition that employers and employees do not stand on equal footing.[45] In Land and Housing Development Corporation v. Esquillo:[46] We have heretofore explained that the reason why quitclaims are commonly frowned upon as contrary to public policy, and why they are held to be ineffective to bar claims for the full measure of the workers' legal rights, is the fact that the employer and the 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 a 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 on their claim. They pressed it. They are deemed not [to] have waived any of their rights. Renuntiatio non praesumitur. Along this line, we have more trenchantly declared that quitclaims and/or complete releases executed by the employees do not estop them from pursuing their claims arising from unfair labor practices 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 does not divest a laborer of the right to prosecute his employer for unfair labor practice acts.[47] (Emphasis in the original) Quitclaims do not bar employees from filing labor complaints and demanding benefits to which they are legally entitled.[48] They are "ineffective in barring recovery of the full measure of a worker's rights, and the acceptance of benefits therefrom does not amount to estoppel."[49] The law does not recognize agreements that result in compensation less than what is mandated by law. These quitclaims do not prevent https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/65230 6/19