DZWX, 222 SCRA 707). The reason why quitclaims are commonly frowned upon as contrary to public policy and they are ineffective to bar claims for the full measure of the workers legal rights is because the employer and employee do not stand on the same footing, such that quitclaims usually take the form of contracts of adherence, not of choice. (Wyeth-Suaco Laboratories, Inc. vs. NLRC, 219 SCRA 356). Assuming arguendo that the quitclaim was executed voluntarily, still, it cannot diminish petitioners entitlement to the full compensation provided in their contract. At the most, such amount can be considered an advance on his claim. [90] In sum, we rule that the termination of the respondents respective contracts of employment was illegal. Pursuant to Section 10, paragraph 5, Rep. Act No. 8042, each of them is entitled to the full reimbursement of the placement fee of P19,000, and interest at 12% per annum. Respondent Navarra is, likewise, entitled to the payment of an amount equivalent to three (3) months salary. All the remaining respondents are entitled to payment of their salaries, equivalent to three months. Pursuant to Section 15 of Rep. Act No. 8042, the petitioner should refund the amount of P4,300 to each of the respondents representing the expenses they incurred for their repatriation. IN LIGHT OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the petition is DENIED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 54744 is AFFIRMED WITH MODIFICATIONS.The petitioner is ordered to pay the following: (1) The amount of NT$46,080 or its peso equivalent to respondent Ronald Navarra minus the amount of P49,000 already advanced to him; (2) To the respondents Romel Sarmiento, Recto Guillermo, Ferdinand Bautista, Apolinario Curameng, Jr. and Joseph Paramio, their respective salaries corresponding to the unexpired portion of their respective contracts; (3) The amount of the placement fees as indicated in the respective official receipts issued to each of the respondents, with interest of 12% per annum, in conformity with Section 10, paragraph 5 of Rep. Act No. 8042; (4) To each of the respondents, the amount of P4,300 representing the expenses they incurred for their return to the Philippines. SO ORDERED. Puno, (Chairman), Quisumbing, and Tinga, JJ., concur. Austria-Martinez, J., no part. [1] Penned by Associate Justice Elvi John Asuncion with Associate Justices Ma. Alicia Austria-Martinez (now an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court) and Portia Alio-Hormachuelos concurring. [2] Records, pp. 54-78.