rest of the spaces to be filled up were all blank. Most of the contents of the agreement were even in Chinese characters. In sum, there can be no other conclusion than that the aforementioned respondents were illegally dismissed, and their employment contract illegally terminated. Under Section 10, paragraph 5 of Rep. Act No. 8042, respondents Sarmiento, Bautista, Curameng and Guillermo are entitled to the full reimbursement of their placement fees. Since each of the respondents remitted only P19,000 to the petitioner, each of them is entitled to P19,000, plus 12% interest per annum. According to Section 10, paragraph 2 of Rep. Act No. 8042,[84] the agency which deployed the employees whose employment contract were adjudged illegally terminated, shall be jointly and solidarily liable with the principal for the money claims awarded to the aforesaid employees. Consequently, the petitioner, as the agency of the respondents, is solidarily liable with its principal Kuan Yuan for the payment of the salaries due to the respondents corresponding to the unexpired portion of their contract, as well as the reimbursement of their placement fees. Under Section 15 of the same Act, the repatriation of the worker and the transport of his personal belongings shall be the primary responsibility of the agency which recruited or deployed the overseas contract worker. All the costs attendant thereto shall be borne by the agency concerned and/or its principal.[85] Consequently, the petitioner is obliged to refund P4,300 to each of the respondents, representing their airfare. Anent the second issue, we rule that the deed of release executed by respondent Navarra did not completely release the petitioner from its liability on the latters claim. As a rule, quitclaims, waivers or releases are looked upon with disfavor and are commonly frowned upon as contrary to public policy and ineffective to bar claims for the measure of a workers legal rights.[86] If (a) there is clear proof that the waiver was wangled from an unsuspecting or gullible person; or (b) the terms of the settlement are unconscionable, and on their face invalid,[87] such quitclaims must be struck down as invalid or illegal. The records reveal that respondent Navarra executed a deed of release and waiver for and in consideration of only P49,000.[88] There is no evidence that he was informed that he was entitled to much more than the said amount, including a refund for the placement fee he paid to the petitioner. Respondent Navarra started working onNovember 7, 1996. His employment contract was for a period of one year. He was repatriated on May 10, 1997, or after a little over six months. The unexpired portion of his contract is, thus, five months and 27 days. Per Section 10, paragraph 5 of Rep. Act No. 8042, he is entitled to the payment of three months salary or NT$46,080[89] andP19,000 placement fee, plus interest at twelve percent (12%) per annum. We, thus, agree with the ruling of the appellate court, viz.: With regard to the deed of quitclaim and acceptance, it is a well-settled principle 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 are ineffective to bar recovery for the full measure of the workers rights (Medina vs. Consolidated Broadcasting System (CBS)-