SECOND DIVISION
[ G.R. No. 193484, January 18, 2012 ]HYPTE R. AUJERO v. PHILIPPINE COMMUNICATIONS SATELLITE CORPORATION +
HYPTE R. AUJERO, PETITIONER, VS. PHILIPPINE COMMUNICATIONS SATELLITE CORPORATION, RESPONDENT.
D E C I S I O N
HYPTE R. AUJERO v. PHILIPPINE COMMUNICATIONS SATELLITE CORPORATION +
HYPTE R. AUJERO, PETITIONER, VS. PHILIPPINE COMMUNICATIONS SATELLITE CORPORATION, RESPONDENT.
D E C I S I O N
REYES, J.:
This is a Petition for Review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court from the November 12, 2009 Decision[1] and July 28, 2010 Resolution[2] of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 107233 entitled "Hypte R.
Aujero v. National Labor Relations Commission and Philippine Communications Satellite Corporation."
In its November 12, 2009 Decision, the CA dismissed the petitioner's petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court from the National Labor Relations Commission's (NLRC) July 4, 2008 and September 29, 2008 Resolutions, the dispositive portion of which states:
The petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration from the above Decision but this was likewise denied by the CA in its July 28, 2010 Resolution.
The Antecedent Facts
It was in 1967 that the petitioner started working for respondent Philippine Communications Satellite Corporation (Philcomsat) as an accountant in the latter's Finance Department. On August 15, 2001 or after thirty-four (34) years of service, the petitioner applied for early retirement. His application for retirement was approved, effective September 15, 2001, entitling him to receive retirement benefits at a rate equivalent to one and a half of his monthly salary for every year of service. At that time, the petitioner was Philcomsat's Senior Vice-President with a monthly salary of Two Hundred Seventy-Four Thousand Eight Hundred Five Pesos (P274,805.00).[4]
On September 12, 2001, the petitioner executed a Deed of Release and Quitclaim[5] in Philcomsat's favor, following his receipt from the latter of a check in the amount of Nine Million Four Hundred Thirty-Nine Thousand Three Hundred Twenty-Seven and 91/100 Pesos (P9,439,327.91).[6]
Almost three (3) years thereafter, the petitioner filed a complaint for unpaid retirement benefits, claiming that the actual amount of his retirement pay is Fourteen Million Fifteen Thousand and Fifty-Five Pesos (P14,015,055.00) and the P9,439,327.91 he received from Philcomsat as supposed settlement for all his claims is unconscionable, which is more than enough reason to declare his quitclaim as null and void. According to the petitioner, he had no choice but to accept a lesser amount as he was in dire need thereof and was all set to return to his hometown and he signed the quitclaim despite the considerable deficiency as no single centavo would be released to him if he did not execute a release and waiver in Philcomsat's favor.[7]
The petitioner claims that his right to receive the full amount of his retirement benefits, which is equivalent to one and a half of his monthly salary for every year of service, is provided under the Retirement Plan that Philcomsat created on January 1, 1977 for the benefit of its employees.[8] On November 3, 1997, Philcomsat and the United Coconut Planters Bank (UCPB) executed a Trust Agreement, where UCPB, as trustee, shall hold, administer and manage the respective contributions of Philcomsat and its employees, as well as the income derived from the investment thereof, for and on behalf of the beneficiaries of the Retirement Plan.[9]
The petitioner claims that Philcomsat has no right to withhold any portion of his retirement benefits as the trust fund created pursuant to the Retirement Plan is for the exclusive benefit of Philcomsat employees and Philcomsat had expressly recognized that it has no right or claim over the trust fund even on the portion pertaining to its contributions.[10] As Section 4 of the Trust Agreement provides:
The petitioner calls attention to the August 15, 2001 letter of Philcomsat's Chairman and President, Mr. Carmelo Africa, addressed to UCPB for the release of P9,439,327.91 to the petitioner and P4,575,727.09 to Philcomsat, which predated the execution of his quitclaim on September 12, 2001.[12] According to the petitioner, this indicates Philcomsat's pre-conceived plans to deprive him of a significant portion of his retirement pay.
On May 31, 2006, Labor Arbiter Joel S. Lustria (LA Lustria) issued a Decision[13] in the petitioner's favor, directing Philcomsat to pay him the amount of P4,575,727.09 and P274,805.00, representing the balance of his retirement benefits and salary for the period from August 15 to September 15, 2001, respectively. LA Lustria found it hard to believe that the petitioner would voluntary waive a significant portion of his retirement pay. He found the consideration supporting the subject quitclaim unconscionable and ruled that the respondent failed to substantiate its claim that the amount received by the petitioner was a product of negotiations between the parties. Thus:
In its July 4, 2008 Resolution,[15] the NLRC granted Philcomsat's appeal and reversed and set aside LA Lustria's May 31, 2006 Decision. The NLRC dismissed the petitioner's complaint for unpaid retirement benefits and salary in consideration of the Deed of Release and Quitclaim he executed in September 12, 2001 following his receipt from Philcomsat of the amount of P9,439,327.91, which constitutes the full settlement of all his claims against Philcomsat. According to the NLRC, the petitioner failed to allege, much less, adduce evidence that Philcomsat employed means to vitiate his consent to the quitclaim. The petitioner is well-educated, a licensed accountant and was Philcomsat's Senior Vice-President prior to his retirement; he cannot therefore claim that he signed the quitclaim without understanding the consequences and implications thereof. The relevant portions of the NLRC's July 4, 2008 Resolution states:
Philcomsat's appeal to the NLRC from LA Lustria's May 31, 2006 Decision was filed and its surety bond posted beyond the prescribed period of ten (10) days. On June 20, 2006, a copy of LA Lustria's Decision was served on Maritess Querubin (Querubin), one of Philcomsat's executive assistants, as Philcomsat's counsel and the executive assistant assigned to her were both out of the office. It was only the following day that Querubin gave a copy of the said Decision to the executive assistant of Philcomsat's counsel, leading the latter to believe that it was only then that the said Decision had been served. In turn, this led Philcomsat's counsel to believe that it was on June 21, 2006 that the ten (10) day-period started to run.
Having in mind that the delay was only one (1) day and the explanation offered by Philcomsat's counsel, the NLRC disregarded Philcomsat's procedural lapse and proceeded to decide the appeal on its merits. Thus:
In his petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court to the CA, the petitioner accused the NLRC of grave abuse of discretion in giving due course to the respondent's belated appeal by relaxing the application of one of the fundamental requirements of appeal. An appeal, being a mere statutory right, should be exercised in a manner that strictly conforms to the prescribed procedure. As of July 3, 2006, or when Philcomsat filed its appeal and posted its surety bond, LA Lustria's Decision had become final and executory and Philcomsat's counsel's failure to verify when the copy of said Decision was actually received does not constitute excusable negligence.
The petitioner likewise anchored his allegation of grave abuse of discretion against the NLRC on the latter's refusal to strike as invalid the quitclaim he executed in Philcomsat's favor. According to the petitioner, his retirement pay amounts to P14,015,055.00 and P9,439,327.91 he received from Philcomsat as supposed settlement for all his claims against it is unconscionable and this is more than enough reason to declare his quitclaim as null and void.
By way of the assailed Decision, the CA found no merit in the petitioner's claims, holding that the NLRC did not act with grave abuse of discretion in giving due course to the respondent's appeal.
The CA further ruled that the NLRC was correct in upholding the validity of the petitioner's quitclaim. Thus:
The petitioner ascribes several errors on the part of the CA. Specifically, the petitioner claims that the CA erred in not dismissing the respondent's appeal to the NLRC, which was filed beyond the prescribed period. There is no dispute that Querubin was authorized to receive mails and correspondences on behalf of Philcomsat's counsel and her receipt of LA Lustria's Decision on June 20, 2006 is binding on Philcomsat. Also, the failure of Philcomsat's counsel to ascertain when exactly the copy of LA Lustria's Decision was received by Querubin is inexcusable negligence. Since the perfection of an appeal within the ten (10)-day period is a mandatory and jurisdictional requirement, Philcomsat's failure to justify its delay should have been reason enough to dismiss its appeal.
The petitioner also claims that the CA erred in upholding the validity of the subject quitclaim. The respondent has no right to retain a portion of his retirement pay and the consideration for the execution of the quitclaim is simply unconscionable. The petitioner submits that the CA should have taken into account that Philcomsat's retirement plan was for the exclusive benefit of its employees and to allow Philcomsat to appropriate a significant portion of his retirement pay is a clear case of unjust enrichment.
On the other hand, Philcomsat alleges that the petitioner willfully and knowingly executed the subject quitclaim in consideration of his receipt of his retirement pay. Albeit his retirement pay was in the reduced amount of P9,439,327.91, Philcomsat alleges that this was arrived at following its negotiations with the petitioner and the latter participated in the computation thereof, taking into account his accountabilities to Philcomsat and the latter's financial debacles.
Philcomsat likewise alleges that the NLRC is clothed with ample authority to set aside technical rules; hence, the NLRC did not act with grave abuse of discretion in entertaining Philcomsat's appeal in consideration of the circumstances surrounding the late filing thereof and the amount subject of the dispute.
Issues
In view of the conflicting positions adopted by the parties, this Court is confronted with two (2) issues that are far from being novel, to wit:
Our Ruling
A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court is confined to the correction of errors of jurisdiction and will not issue absent a showing of a capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment, equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. Not every error in a proceeding, or every erroneous conclusion of law or of fact, is an act in excess of jurisdiction or an abuse of discretion.[20] The prerogative of writ of certiorari does not lie except to correct, not every misstep, but a grave abuse of discretion.[21]
Procedural rules may be relaxed to give way to
the full determination of a case on its merits.
Confronted with the task of determining whether the CA erred in not finding grave abuse of discretion in the NLRC's decision to give due course to Philcomsat's appeal despite its being belatedly filed, this Court rules in Philcomsat's favor.
Procedural rules may be waived or dispensed with in absolutely meritorious cases. A review of the cases cited by the petitioner, Rubia v. Government Service Insurance System[22] and Videogram Regulatory Board v. Court of Appeals,[23] where this Court adhered to the strict implementation of the rules and considered them inviolable, shows that the patent lack of merit of the appeals render liberal interpretation pointless and naught. The contrary obtains in this case as Philcomsat's case is not entirely unmeritorious. Specifically, Philcomsat alleged that the petitioner's execution of the subject quitclaim was voluntary and he made no claim that he did so. Philcomsat likewise argued that the petitioner's educational attainment and the position he occupied in Philcomsat's hierarchy militate against his claim that he was pressured or coerced into signing the quitclaim.
The emerging trend in our jurisprudence is to afford every party-litigant the amplest opportunity for the proper and just determination of his cause free from the constraints of technicalities.[24] Far from having gravely abused its discretion, the NLRC correctly prioritized substantial justice over the rigid and stringent application of procedural rules. This, by all means, is not a case of grave abuse of discretion calling for the issuance of a writ of certiorari.
In Goodrich Manufacturing Corporation, v. Ativo,[25] this Court reiterated the standards that must be observed in determining whether a waiver and quitclaim has been validly executed:
In Callanta v. National Labor Relations Commission,[27] this Court ruled that:
While the law looks with disfavor upon releases and quitclaims by employees who are inveigled or pressured into signing them by unscrupulous employers seeking to evade their legal responsibilities, a legitimate waiver representing a voluntary settlement of a laborer's claims should be respected by the courts as the law between the parties.[29] Considering the petitioner's claim of fraud and bad faith against Philcomsat to be unsubstantiated, this Court finds the quitclaim in dispute to be legitimate waiver.
While the petitioner bewailed as having been coerced or pressured into signing the release and waiver, his failure to present evidence renders his allegation self-serving and inutile to invalidate the same. That no portion of his retirement pay will be released to him or his urgent need for funds does not constitute the pressure or coercion contemplated by law.
That the petitioner was all set to return to his hometown and was in dire need of money would likewise not qualify as undue pressure sufficient to invalidate the quitclaim. "Dire necessity" may be an acceptable ground to annul quitclaims if the consideration is unconscionably low and the employee was tricked into accepting it, but is not an acceptable ground for annulling the release when it is not shown that the employee has been forced to execute it.[30] While it is our duty to prevent the exploitation of employees, it also behooves us to protect the sanctity of contracts that do not contravene our laws.[31]
The petitioner is not an ordinary laborer. He is mature, intelligent and educated with a college degree, who cannot be easily duped or tricked into performing an act against his will. As no proof was presented that the said quitclaim was entered into through fraud, deception, misrepresentation, the same is valid and binding. The petitioner is estopped from questioning the said quitclaim and cannot renege after accepting the benefits thereunder. This Court will never satisfy itself with surmises, conjectures or speculations for the purpose of giving imprimatur to the petitioner's attempt to abdicate from his obligations under a valid and binding release and waiver.
The petitioner's educational background and employment stature render it improbable that he was pressured, intimidated or inveigled into signing the subject quitclaim. This Court cannot permit the petitioner to relieve himself from the consequences of his act, when his knowledge and understanding thereof is expected. Also, the period of time that the petitioner allowed to lapse before filing a complaint to recover the supposed deficiency in his retirement pay clouds his motives, leading to the reasonable conclusion that his claim of being aggrieved is a mere afterthought, if not a mere pretention.
The CA and the NLRC were unanimous in holding that the petitioner voluntarily executed the subject quitclaim. The Supreme Court (SC) is not a trier of facts, and this doctrine applies with greater force in labor cases. Factual questions are for the labor tribunals to resolve and whether the petitioner voluntarily executed the subject quitclaim is a question of fact. In this case, the factual issues have already been determined by the NLRC and its findings were affirmed by the CA. Judicial review by this Court does not extend to a reevaluation of the sufficiency of the evidence upon which the proper labor tribunal has based its determination.[32]
Factual findings of labor officials who are deemed to have acquired expertise in matters within their respective jurisdictions are generally accorded not only respect, but even finality, and are binding on the SC. Verily, their conclusions are accorded great weight upon appeal, especially when supported by substantial evidence. Consequently, the SC is not duty-bound to delve into the accuracy of their factual findings, in the absence of a clear showing that the same were arbitrary and bereft of any rational basis.[33]
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Petition is hereby DENIED. The assailed November 12, 2009 Decision and July 28, 2010 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 107233 are hereby AFFIRMED.
No pronouncements as to cost.
SO ORDERED.
Carpio, (Chairperson), Perez, Sereno, and Bernabe, JJ.* concur.
* Additional Member in lieu of Associate Justice Arturo D. Brion per Special Order No. 1174 dated January 9, 2012.
[1] Penned by Associate Justice Hakim S. Abdulwahid, with Associate Justices Sesinando E. Villon and Stephen C. Cruz, concurring; rollo, at 31-52.
[2] Id. at 54-55.
[3] Id. at 51.
[4] Id. at 14.
[5] Id. at 349.
[6] Id. at 16.
[7] Id.
[8] Id. at 14, 141 and 225.
[9] Id. at 141-142.
[10] Id. at 15.
[11] Id. at 143.
[12] Id. at 15, 16 and 319.
[13] Id. at 76-85.
[14] Id. at 83-84.
[15] Id. at 177-185
[16] Id. at 182-184.
[17] Id. at 180-181.
[18] Id. at 46-47.
[19] Id. at 49-51.
[20] Alhambra Cigar and Cigarette Mfg. Co., Inc. v. Caleda, et al., 122 Phil 355, 363 (1965).
[21] Garcia, Jr. v. Judge Ranada, Jr., 248 Phil 239, 246 (1988).
[22] 476 Phil 623 (2004).
[23] 332 Phil 820 (1996).
[24] Heirs of the Deceased Spouses Arcilla v. Teodoro, G.R. No. 162886, August 11, 2008, 561 SCRA 545, 557.
[25] G.R. No. 188002, February 1, 2010, 611 SCRA 261, citing Periquet v. NLRC, 264 Phil 1115, 1122 (1990).
[26] Id. at 266.
[27] G.R. No. 105083, August 20, 1993, 225 SCRA 526.
[28] Id. at 535.
[29] Talam v. NLRC, G.R. No. 175040, April 6, 2010, 617 SCRA 408, 425, citing Veloso and Liguaton v. DOLE, et al., G.R. No. 87297, August 5, 1991, 200 SCRA 201.
[30] Coats Manila Bay, Inc. v. Ortega, G.R. No. 172628, February 13, 2009, 579 SCRA 300, 312.
[31] Asian Alcohol Corp. v. NLRC, 364 Phil 912, 933 (1999).
[32] Alfaro v. Court of Appeals, 416 Phil 310, 318 (2001), citing Social Security System Employees Association v. Bathan-Velasco, 372 Phil 124, 128-129 (1999).
[33] Id.
In its November 12, 2009 Decision, the CA dismissed the petitioner's petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court from the National Labor Relations Commission's (NLRC) July 4, 2008 and September 29, 2008 Resolutions, the dispositive portion of which states:
WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED. The assailed Resolutions dated July 4, 2008 and September 29, 2008 of public respondent National Labor Relations Commission in NLRC NCR Case No. 00-07-08921-2004 [NLRC NCR CA No. 049644-06] are AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.[3]
The petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration from the above Decision but this was likewise denied by the CA in its July 28, 2010 Resolution.
It was in 1967 that the petitioner started working for respondent Philippine Communications Satellite Corporation (Philcomsat) as an accountant in the latter's Finance Department. On August 15, 2001 or after thirty-four (34) years of service, the petitioner applied for early retirement. His application for retirement was approved, effective September 15, 2001, entitling him to receive retirement benefits at a rate equivalent to one and a half of his monthly salary for every year of service. At that time, the petitioner was Philcomsat's Senior Vice-President with a monthly salary of Two Hundred Seventy-Four Thousand Eight Hundred Five Pesos (P274,805.00).[4]
On September 12, 2001, the petitioner executed a Deed of Release and Quitclaim[5] in Philcomsat's favor, following his receipt from the latter of a check in the amount of Nine Million Four Hundred Thirty-Nine Thousand Three Hundred Twenty-Seven and 91/100 Pesos (P9,439,327.91).[6]
Almost three (3) years thereafter, the petitioner filed a complaint for unpaid retirement benefits, claiming that the actual amount of his retirement pay is Fourteen Million Fifteen Thousand and Fifty-Five Pesos (P14,015,055.00) and the P9,439,327.91 he received from Philcomsat as supposed settlement for all his claims is unconscionable, which is more than enough reason to declare his quitclaim as null and void. According to the petitioner, he had no choice but to accept a lesser amount as he was in dire need thereof and was all set to return to his hometown and he signed the quitclaim despite the considerable deficiency as no single centavo would be released to him if he did not execute a release and waiver in Philcomsat's favor.[7]
The petitioner claims that his right to receive the full amount of his retirement benefits, which is equivalent to one and a half of his monthly salary for every year of service, is provided under the Retirement Plan that Philcomsat created on January 1, 1977 for the benefit of its employees.[8] On November 3, 1997, Philcomsat and the United Coconut Planters Bank (UCPB) executed a Trust Agreement, where UCPB, as trustee, shall hold, administer and manage the respective contributions of Philcomsat and its employees, as well as the income derived from the investment thereof, for and on behalf of the beneficiaries of the Retirement Plan.[9]
The petitioner claims that Philcomsat has no right to withhold any portion of his retirement benefits as the trust fund created pursuant to the Retirement Plan is for the exclusive benefit of Philcomsat employees and Philcomsat had expressly recognized that it has no right or claim over the trust fund even on the portion pertaining to its contributions.[10] As Section 4 of the Trust Agreement provides:
Section 4 The Companies, in accordance with the provisions of the Plan, hereby waive all their rights to their contributions in money or property which are and will be paid or transferred to the Trust Fund, and no person shall have any right in, or with respect to, the Trust Fund or any part thereof except as expressly provided herein or in the Plan. At no time, prior to the satisfaction of all liabilities with respect to the participants and their beneficiaries under the Plan, shall any part of the corpus or income of the Fund be used for or diverted to purposes other than for the exclusive benefit of Plan participants and their beneficiaries.[11]
The petitioner calls attention to the August 15, 2001 letter of Philcomsat's Chairman and President, Mr. Carmelo Africa, addressed to UCPB for the release of P9,439,327.91 to the petitioner and P4,575,727.09 to Philcomsat, which predated the execution of his quitclaim on September 12, 2001.[12] According to the petitioner, this indicates Philcomsat's pre-conceived plans to deprive him of a significant portion of his retirement pay.
On May 31, 2006, Labor Arbiter Joel S. Lustria (LA Lustria) issued a Decision[13] in the petitioner's favor, directing Philcomsat to pay him the amount of P4,575,727.09 and P274,805.00, representing the balance of his retirement benefits and salary for the period from August 15 to September 15, 2001, respectively. LA Lustria found it hard to believe that the petitioner would voluntary waive a significant portion of his retirement pay. He found the consideration supporting the subject quitclaim unconscionable and ruled that the respondent failed to substantiate its claim that the amount received by the petitioner was a product of negotiations between the parties. Thus:
It would appear from the tenor of the letter that, rather that the alleged agreement, between complainant and respondent, respondent is claiming payment for an "outstanding due to Philcomsat" out of the retirement benefits of complainant. This could hardly be considered as proof of an agreement to reduce complainant's retirement benefits. Absent any showing of any agreement or authorization, the deductions from complainant's retirement benefits should be considered as improper and illegal.
If we were to give credence to the claim of respondent, it would appear that complainant has voluntarily waived a total amount of [P]4,575,727.09. Given the purpose of retirement benefits to provide for a retiree a source of income for the remainder of his years, it defies understanding how complainant could accept such an arrangement and lose more than [P]4.5 million in the process. One can readily see the unreasonableness of such a proposition. By the same token, the Quitclaim and Waiver over benefits worth millions is apparently unconscionable and unacceptable under normal circumstances. The Supreme Court has consistently ruled that waivers must be fair, reasonable, and just and must not be unconscionable on its face. The explanation of the complainant that he was presented with a lower amount on pain that the entire benefits will not be released is more believable and consistent with evidence. We, therefore, rule against the effectivity of the waiver and quitclaim, thus, complainant is entitled to the balance of his retirement benefits in the amount of [P]4,575,727.09.[14]
In its July 4, 2008 Resolution,[15] the NLRC granted Philcomsat's appeal and reversed and set aside LA Lustria's May 31, 2006 Decision. The NLRC dismissed the petitioner's complaint for unpaid retirement benefits and salary in consideration of the Deed of Release and Quitclaim he executed in September 12, 2001 following his receipt from Philcomsat of the amount of P9,439,327.91, which constitutes the full settlement of all his claims against Philcomsat. According to the NLRC, the petitioner failed to allege, much less, adduce evidence that Philcomsat employed means to vitiate his consent to the quitclaim. The petitioner is well-educated, a licensed accountant and was Philcomsat's Senior Vice-President prior to his retirement; he cannot therefore claim that he signed the quitclaim without understanding the consequences and implications thereof. The relevant portions of the NLRC's July 4, 2008 Resolution states:
After analyzing the antecedent, contemporaneous and subsequent facts surrounding the alleged underpayment of retirement benefits, We rule that respondent-appellant have no more obligation to the complainant-appellee.
The complainant-appellee willingly received the check for the said amount, without having filed any objections nor reservations thereto, and even executed and signed a Release and Quitclaim in favor of the respondent-appellant. Undoubtedly, the quitclaim the complainant-appellee signed is valid. Complainant-appellee has not denied at any time its due execution and authenticity. He never imputed claims of coercion, undue influence, or fraud against the respondent-appellant. His statement in his reply to the respondent-appellant's position paper that the quitclaim is void alleging that it was obtained through duress is only an afterthought to make his claim appear to be convincing. If it were true, complainant-appellee should have asserted such fact from the very beginning. Also, there was no convincing proof shown by the complainant-appellee to prove existence of duress exerted against him. His stature and educational attainment would both negate that he can be forced into something against his will.
It should be stressed that complainant-appellee even waited for a period of almost three (3) years before he filed the complaint. If he really felt aggrieved by the amount he received, prudence dictates that he immediately would call the respondent-appellant's attention and at the earliest opportune shout his objections, rather than wait for years, before deciding to claim his supposed benefits, [e]specially that his alleged entitlement is a large sum of money. Thus, it is evident that the filing of the instant case is a clear case of afterthought, and that complainant-appellee simply had a change of mind. This We cannot allow.
x x x x
In the instant case, having willingly signed the Deed of Release and Quitclaim dated September 12, 2001, it is hard to conclude that the complainant-appellee was merely forced by the necessity to execute the quitclaim. Complainant-appellee is not a gullible or unsuspecting person who can easily be tricked or inveigled and, thus, needs the extra protection of law. He is well-educated and a highly experienced man. The release and quitclaim executed by the complainant-appellee is therefore considered valid and binding on him and the respondent-appellant. He is already estopped from questioning the same.[16]
Philcomsat's appeal to the NLRC from LA Lustria's May 31, 2006 Decision was filed and its surety bond posted beyond the prescribed period of ten (10) days. On June 20, 2006, a copy of LA Lustria's Decision was served on Maritess Querubin (Querubin), one of Philcomsat's executive assistants, as Philcomsat's counsel and the executive assistant assigned to her were both out of the office. It was only the following day that Querubin gave a copy of the said Decision to the executive assistant of Philcomsat's counsel, leading the latter to believe that it was only then that the said Decision had been served. In turn, this led Philcomsat's counsel to believe that it was on June 21, 2006 that the ten (10) day-period started to run.
Having in mind that the delay was only one (1) day and the explanation offered by Philcomsat's counsel, the NLRC disregarded Philcomsat's procedural lapse and proceeded to decide the appeal on its merits. Thus:
It appears that on June 20[,] 2006[,] copy of the Decision was received by one (Maritess) who is not the Secretary of respondents-appellants' counsel and therefore not authorized to receive such document. It was only the following day, June 21, 2006, that respondents-appellants['] counsel actually received the Decision which was stamped received on said date. Verily, counsel has until July 3, 2006 within which to perfect the appeal, which he did. In PLDT vs. NLRC, et al., G.R. No. 60250, March 26, 1984, the Honorable Supreme Court held that: "where notice of the Decision was served on the receiving station at the ground floor of the defendant's company building, and received much later at the office of the legal counsel on the ninth floor of said building, which was his address of record, service of said decision has taken effect from said later receipt at the aforesaid office of its legal counsel."
Be that as it may, the provisions of Section 10, Rule VII of the NLRC Rules of Procedure, states, that:
"SECTION 10. TECHNICAL RULES NOT BINDING. The rules of procedure and evidence prevailing in courts of law and equity shall not be controlling and the Commission shall use every and all reasonable means to ascertain the facts in each case speedily and objectively, without regard to technicalities of law or procedure, all in the interest of due process. x x x"
Additionally, the Supreme Court has allowed appeals from decisions of the Labor Arbiter to the NLRC, even if filed beyond the reglementary period, in the interest of justice. Moreover, under Article 218 (c) of the Labor Code, the NLRC may, in the exercise of its appellate powers, correct, amend or waive any error, defect or irregularity whether in substance or in form. Further, Article 221 of the same provides that: In any proceedings before the Commission or any of the Labor Arbiters, the rules of evidence prevailing in courts of law or equity shall not be controlling and it is the spirit and intention of this Code that the Commission and its members and the Labor Arbiters shall use in each case speedily and objectively and without regard to technicalities of law or procedure, all in the interest of due process.[17]
In his petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court to the CA, the petitioner accused the NLRC of grave abuse of discretion in giving due course to the respondent's belated appeal by relaxing the application of one of the fundamental requirements of appeal. An appeal, being a mere statutory right, should be exercised in a manner that strictly conforms to the prescribed procedure. As of July 3, 2006, or when Philcomsat filed its appeal and posted its surety bond, LA Lustria's Decision had become final and executory and Philcomsat's counsel's failure to verify when the copy of said Decision was actually received does not constitute excusable negligence.
The petitioner likewise anchored his allegation of grave abuse of discretion against the NLRC on the latter's refusal to strike as invalid the quitclaim he executed in Philcomsat's favor. According to the petitioner, his retirement pay amounts to P14,015,055.00 and P9,439,327.91 he received from Philcomsat as supposed settlement for all his claims against it is unconscionable and this is more than enough reason to declare his quitclaim as null and void.
By way of the assailed Decision, the CA found no merit in the petitioner's claims, holding that the NLRC did not act with grave abuse of discretion in giving due course to the respondent's appeal.
The Supreme Court has ruled that where a copy of the decision is served on a person who is neither a clerk nor one in charge of the attorney's office, such service is invalid. In the case at bar, it is undisputed that Maritess Querubin, the person who received a copy of the Labor Arbiter's decision, was neither a clerk of Atty. Yanzon, private respondent's counsel, nor a person in charge of Atty. Yanzon's office. Hence, her receipt of said decision on June 20, 2006 cannot be considered as notice to Atty. Yanzon. Since a copy of the decision was actually delivered by Maritess to Atty. Yanzon's secretary only on June 21, 2006, it was only on this date that the ten-day period for the filing of private respondent's appeal commenced to run. Thus, private respondent's July 3, 2006 appeal to the NLRC was seasonably filed.
Similarly, the provision of Article 223 of the Labor Code requiring the posting of a bond for the perfection of an appeal of a monetary award must be given liberal interpretation in line with the desired objective of resolving controversies on the merits. If only to achieve substantial justice, strict observance of the reglementary periods may be relaxed if warranted. However, this liberal interpretation must be justified by substantial compliance with the rule. As the Supreme Court ruled in Buenaobra v. Lim King Guan:
x x x x
We note that in the instant case, private respondent substantially complied with the filing of its appeal and the required appeal bond on July 3, 2006 the next working day after July 1, 2006, the intervening days between the said two dates being a Saturday and a Sunday. Substantial justice dictates that the present case be decided on the merits, especially since there was a mere one-day delay in the filing by private respondent of its appeal and appeal bond with the NLRC. x x x.[18] (citation omitted)
The CA further ruled that the NLRC was correct in upholding the validity of the petitioner's quitclaim. Thus:
In the same vein, this Court finds that the NLRC did not act with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in declaring as valid the Deed of Release and Quitclaim dated September 12, 2001 absolving private respondent from liability arising from any and all suits, claims, demands or other causes of action of whatever nature in consideration of the amount petitioner received in connection with his retirement signed by petitioner. x x x
x x x x
The assertion of petitioner that the Deed of Release and Quitclaim he signed should be struck down for embodying unconscionable terms is simply untenable. Petitioner himself admits that he has received the amount of [P]9,327,000.00 representing his retirement pay and other benefits from private respondent. By no stretch of the imagination could the said amount be considered unconscionably low or shocking to the conscience, so as to warrant the invalidation of the Deed of Release and Quitclaim. Granting that the source of the retirement pay of petitioner is the trust fund maintained by private respondent at the UCPB for the payment of the retirement pay of private-respondent's employees, the said circumstance would still not justify the invalidation of the Deed of Release and Quitclaim, for petitioner clearly understood the contents thereof at the time of its execution but still choose to sign the deed. The terms thereof being reasonable and there being no showing that private respondent employed coercion, fraud or undue influence upon petitioner to compel him to sign the same, the subject Deed of Release and Quitclaim signed by petitioner shall be upheld as valid.[19] (citations omitted)
The petitioner ascribes several errors on the part of the CA. Specifically, the petitioner claims that the CA erred in not dismissing the respondent's appeal to the NLRC, which was filed beyond the prescribed period. There is no dispute that Querubin was authorized to receive mails and correspondences on behalf of Philcomsat's counsel and her receipt of LA Lustria's Decision on June 20, 2006 is binding on Philcomsat. Also, the failure of Philcomsat's counsel to ascertain when exactly the copy of LA Lustria's Decision was received by Querubin is inexcusable negligence. Since the perfection of an appeal within the ten (10)-day period is a mandatory and jurisdictional requirement, Philcomsat's failure to justify its delay should have been reason enough to dismiss its appeal.
The petitioner also claims that the CA erred in upholding the validity of the subject quitclaim. The respondent has no right to retain a portion of his retirement pay and the consideration for the execution of the quitclaim is simply unconscionable. The petitioner submits that the CA should have taken into account that Philcomsat's retirement plan was for the exclusive benefit of its employees and to allow Philcomsat to appropriate a significant portion of his retirement pay is a clear case of unjust enrichment.
On the other hand, Philcomsat alleges that the petitioner willfully and knowingly executed the subject quitclaim in consideration of his receipt of his retirement pay. Albeit his retirement pay was in the reduced amount of P9,439,327.91, Philcomsat alleges that this was arrived at following its negotiations with the petitioner and the latter participated in the computation thereof, taking into account his accountabilities to Philcomsat and the latter's financial debacles.
Philcomsat likewise alleges that the NLRC is clothed with ample authority to set aside technical rules; hence, the NLRC did not act with grave abuse of discretion in entertaining Philcomsat's appeal in consideration of the circumstances surrounding the late filing thereof and the amount subject of the dispute.
In view of the conflicting positions adopted by the parties, this Court is confronted with two (2) issues that are far from being novel, to wit:
- Whether the delay in the filing of Philcomsat's appeal and posting of surety bond is inexcusable; and
- Whether the quitclaim executed by the petitioner in Philcomsat's favor is valid, thereby foreclosing his right to institute any claim against Philcomsat.
A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court is confined to the correction of errors of jurisdiction and will not issue absent a showing of a capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment, equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. Not every error in a proceeding, or every erroneous conclusion of law or of fact, is an act in excess of jurisdiction or an abuse of discretion.[20] The prerogative of writ of certiorari does not lie except to correct, not every misstep, but a grave abuse of discretion.[21]
Procedural rules may be relaxed to give way to
the full determination of a case on its merits.
Confronted with the task of determining whether the CA erred in not finding grave abuse of discretion in the NLRC's decision to give due course to Philcomsat's appeal despite its being belatedly filed, this Court rules in Philcomsat's favor.
Procedural rules may be waived or dispensed with in absolutely meritorious cases. A review of the cases cited by the petitioner, Rubia v. Government Service Insurance System[22] and Videogram Regulatory Board v. Court of Appeals,[23] where this Court adhered to the strict implementation of the rules and considered them inviolable, shows that the patent lack of merit of the appeals render liberal interpretation pointless and naught. The contrary obtains in this case as Philcomsat's case is not entirely unmeritorious. Specifically, Philcomsat alleged that the petitioner's execution of the subject quitclaim was voluntary and he made no claim that he did so. Philcomsat likewise argued that the petitioner's educational attainment and the position he occupied in Philcomsat's hierarchy militate against his claim that he was pressured or coerced into signing the quitclaim.
The emerging trend in our jurisprudence is to afford every party-litigant the amplest opportunity for the proper and just determination of his cause free from the constraints of technicalities.[24] Far from having gravely abused its discretion, the NLRC correctly prioritized substantial justice over the rigid and stringent application of procedural rules. This, by all means, is not a case of grave abuse of discretion calling for the issuance of a writ of certiorari.
|
Absent any evidence that any of the vices of consent is present and considering the petitioner's position and education, the quitclaim executed by the petitioner constitutes a valid and binding agreement.
|
In Goodrich Manufacturing Corporation, v. Ativo,[25] this Court reiterated the standards that must be observed in determining whether a waiver and quitclaim has been validly executed:
Not all waivers and quitclaims are invalid as against public policy. If the agreement was voluntarily entered into and represents a reasonable settlement, it is binding on the parties and may not later be disowned simply because of a change of mind. It is only where there is clear proof that the waiver was wangled from an unsuspecting or gullible person, or the terms of settlement are unconscionable on its face, that the law will step in to annul the questionable transaction. But where it is shown that the person making the waiver did so voluntarily, with full understanding of what he was doing, and the consideration for the quitclaim is credible and reasonable, the transaction must be recognized as a valid and binding undertaking.[26] (emphasis supplied)
In Callanta v. National Labor Relations Commission,[27] this Court ruled that:
It is highly unlikely and incredible for a man of petitioner's position and educational attainment to so easily succumb to private respondent company's alleged pressures without even defending himself nor demanding a final audit report before signing any resignation letter. Assuming that pressure was indeed exerted against him, there was no urgency for petitioner to sign the resignation letter. He knew the nature of the letter that he was signing, for as argued by respondent company, petitioner being "a man of high educational attainment and qualification, x x x he is expected to know the import of everything that he executes, whether written or oral."[28]
While the law looks with disfavor upon releases and quitclaims by employees who are inveigled or pressured into signing them by unscrupulous employers seeking to evade their legal responsibilities, a legitimate waiver representing a voluntary settlement of a laborer's claims should be respected by the courts as the law between the parties.[29] Considering the petitioner's claim of fraud and bad faith against Philcomsat to be unsubstantiated, this Court finds the quitclaim in dispute to be legitimate waiver.
While the petitioner bewailed as having been coerced or pressured into signing the release and waiver, his failure to present evidence renders his allegation self-serving and inutile to invalidate the same. That no portion of his retirement pay will be released to him or his urgent need for funds does not constitute the pressure or coercion contemplated by law.
That the petitioner was all set to return to his hometown and was in dire need of money would likewise not qualify as undue pressure sufficient to invalidate the quitclaim. "Dire necessity" may be an acceptable ground to annul quitclaims if the consideration is unconscionably low and the employee was tricked into accepting it, but is not an acceptable ground for annulling the release when it is not shown that the employee has been forced to execute it.[30] While it is our duty to prevent the exploitation of employees, it also behooves us to protect the sanctity of contracts that do not contravene our laws.[31]
The petitioner is not an ordinary laborer. He is mature, intelligent and educated with a college degree, who cannot be easily duped or tricked into performing an act against his will. As no proof was presented that the said quitclaim was entered into through fraud, deception, misrepresentation, the same is valid and binding. The petitioner is estopped from questioning the said quitclaim and cannot renege after accepting the benefits thereunder. This Court will never satisfy itself with surmises, conjectures or speculations for the purpose of giving imprimatur to the petitioner's attempt to abdicate from his obligations under a valid and binding release and waiver.
The petitioner's educational background and employment stature render it improbable that he was pressured, intimidated or inveigled into signing the subject quitclaim. This Court cannot permit the petitioner to relieve himself from the consequences of his act, when his knowledge and understanding thereof is expected. Also, the period of time that the petitioner allowed to lapse before filing a complaint to recover the supposed deficiency in his retirement pay clouds his motives, leading to the reasonable conclusion that his claim of being aggrieved is a mere afterthought, if not a mere pretention.
The CA and the NLRC were unanimous in holding that the petitioner voluntarily executed the subject quitclaim. The Supreme Court (SC) is not a trier of facts, and this doctrine applies with greater force in labor cases. Factual questions are for the labor tribunals to resolve and whether the petitioner voluntarily executed the subject quitclaim is a question of fact. In this case, the factual issues have already been determined by the NLRC and its findings were affirmed by the CA. Judicial review by this Court does not extend to a reevaluation of the sufficiency of the evidence upon which the proper labor tribunal has based its determination.[32]
Factual findings of labor officials who are deemed to have acquired expertise in matters within their respective jurisdictions are generally accorded not only respect, but even finality, and are binding on the SC. Verily, their conclusions are accorded great weight upon appeal, especially when supported by substantial evidence. Consequently, the SC is not duty-bound to delve into the accuracy of their factual findings, in the absence of a clear showing that the same were arbitrary and bereft of any rational basis.[33]
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Petition is hereby DENIED. The assailed November 12, 2009 Decision and July 28, 2010 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 107233 are hereby AFFIRMED.
No pronouncements as to cost.
SO ORDERED.
Carpio, (Chairperson), Perez, Sereno, and Bernabe, JJ.* concur.
* Additional Member in lieu of Associate Justice Arturo D. Brion per Special Order No. 1174 dated January 9, 2012.
[1] Penned by Associate Justice Hakim S. Abdulwahid, with Associate Justices Sesinando E. Villon and Stephen C. Cruz, concurring; rollo, at 31-52.
[2] Id. at 54-55.
[3] Id. at 51.
[4] Id. at 14.
[5] Id. at 349.
[6] Id. at 16.
[7] Id.
[8] Id. at 14, 141 and 225.
[9] Id. at 141-142.
[10] Id. at 15.
[11] Id. at 143.
[12] Id. at 15, 16 and 319.
[13] Id. at 76-85.
[14] Id. at 83-84.
[15] Id. at 177-185
[16] Id. at 182-184.
[17] Id. at 180-181.
[18] Id. at 46-47.
[19] Id. at 49-51.
[20] Alhambra Cigar and Cigarette Mfg. Co., Inc. v. Caleda, et al., 122 Phil 355, 363 (1965).
[21] Garcia, Jr. v. Judge Ranada, Jr., 248 Phil 239, 246 (1988).
[22] 476 Phil 623 (2004).
[23] 332 Phil 820 (1996).
[24] Heirs of the Deceased Spouses Arcilla v. Teodoro, G.R. No. 162886, August 11, 2008, 561 SCRA 545, 557.
[25] G.R. No. 188002, February 1, 2010, 611 SCRA 261, citing Periquet v. NLRC, 264 Phil 1115, 1122 (1990).
[26] Id. at 266.
[27] G.R. No. 105083, August 20, 1993, 225 SCRA 526.
[28] Id. at 535.
[29] Talam v. NLRC, G.R. No. 175040, April 6, 2010, 617 SCRA 408, 425, citing Veloso and Liguaton v. DOLE, et al., G.R. No. 87297, August 5, 1991, 200 SCRA 201.
[30] Coats Manila Bay, Inc. v. Ortega, G.R. No. 172628, February 13, 2009, 579 SCRA 300, 312.
[31] Asian Alcohol Corp. v. NLRC, 364 Phil 912, 933 (1999).
[32] Alfaro v. Court of Appeals, 416 Phil 310, 318 (2001), citing Social Security System Employees Association v. Bathan-Velasco, 372 Phil 124, 128-129 (1999).
[33] Id.