6/7/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly In effect, while petitioner[27] had the luxury of having other remedies available to it such as its petition for certiorari pending before the appellate court, and an eventual appeal to this Court, respondent,[28] on the other hand, could no longer pursue other claims, including for interests that may accrue during the pendency of the case.[29] That respondents did not invoke the prohibition in the Affidavit - when the instant Petition was instituted - does not take away the fact that petitioner has been unduly deprived of such recourse through the documents he was made to sign. In Career Philippines, believing that the execution of the LA Decision was imminent after its petition for injunctive relief was denied, the employer filed before the LA a pleading embodying a conditional satisfaction of judgment before the CA and, accordingly, paid the employee the monetary award in the LA decision. In the said pleading, the employer stated that the conditional satisfaction of the judgment award was without prejudice to its pending appeal before the CA and that it was being made only to prevent the imminent execution. The CA later dismissed the employer's petition for being moot and academic, noting that the decision of the LA had attained finality with the satisfaction of the judgment award. This Court affirmed the ruling of the CA, interpreting the 'conditional settlement' to be tantamount to an amicable settlement of the case resulting in the mootness of the petition for certiorari, considering (i) that the employee could no longer pursue other claims, and (ii) that the employer could not have been compelled to immediately pay because it had filed an appeal bond to ensure payment to the employee. Stated differently, the Court ruled against the employer because the conditional satisfaction of judgment signed by the parties was highly prejudicial to the employee. The agreement stated that the payment of the monetary award was without prejudice to the right of the employer to file a Petition for certiorari and appeal, while the employee agreed that she would no longer file any complaint or prosecute any suit of [sic] action against the employer after receiving the payment.[30] (Emphasis supplied) Within the context of the constitutional, legislative, and jurisprudential guarantees afforded to labor, the position petitioner has been led into is unjust, unfair, and arbitrary. In More Maritime Agencies, Inc. v. NLRC,[31] 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 workers legal rights, elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/62635 10/14