6/5/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly quitclaim, the same was invalid for want of fair and credible consideration. In the assailed Resolution dated January 2, 2012, the CA denied petitioners' Motion for Reconsideration.[25] Hence, petitioners filed this Petition raising the following issues: Issues 1. WHETHER xxx THE RESPONDENT IS ESTOPPED OR BARRED BY LACHES FROM CLAIMING THAT HE WAS ILLEGALLY DISMISSED SINCE IT TOOK HIM ALMOST TWO (2) YEARS TO MAKE SUCH CLAIM AGAINST THE PETITIONERS. 2. WHETHER xxx RESPONDENT'S CLAIMED ILLEGAL DISMISSAL IS NEGATED BY HIS ACT OF APPLYING FOR RE-DEPLOYMENT WITH THE PETITIONERS AND WHICH HE EVEN ARBITRARILY DECLINED WHEN HE WAS SO SCHEDULED TO JOIN THE CROWLEY VESSEL. 3. WHETHER xxx RESPONDENT'S CLAIMED ILLEGAL DISMISSAL IS NEGATED BY HIS VOLUNTARILY EXECUTED QUITCLAIM AFTER HIS REPATRIATION AND IN FAVOR OF THE PETITIONERS. 4. WHETHER xxx PETITIONERS' ADDUCED EVIDENCE WOULD NOT CONSTITUTE AS SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE TO PROVE THE RESPONDENT'S INCOMPETENCE AND POOR PERFORMANCE AND xxx JUSTIFIED HIS DISMISSAL FROM EMPLOYMENT.[26] Petitioners maintain that respondent was aware of the reason for his repatriation and accepted the cause thereof as shown by his failure to immediately file a claim against them. Besides, he repeatedly followed up his possible redeployment with them. He was in fact scheduled for deployment in January 2008, but declined it. Petitioners also contend that respondent voluntarily executed a quitclaim. This quitclaim was based on sufficient consideration because they paid him his accrued benefits. Petitioners likewise posit that respondent's incompetence and poor performance were supported by substantial evidence; that even in his Position Paper respondent admitted that his work performance did not sit well with the captain; that if it were not for his poor work performance then the captain would have no reason to reprimand him everyday; and that respondent could not deny that he was hampered by his stiff right arm in performing his duties. Petitioners assert that they informed respondent of his poor performance through the aforesaid Report which he declined to receive. They likewise argue that the entries in the Report were based on entries in the vessel's logbook that deserve consideration. Petitioners moreover argue that the captain of the previous vessel where respondent was deployed also complained about his poor performance. elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/61248 4/10