Republic of the Philippines

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION
National Capital Region
Quezon City

JUAN DELA CRUZ

Complainant

-versus- NLRC NCR Case 08-14204-18

CORPORATION
Respondent
x----------------------------------------x

MANIFESTATION WITH MOTION TO ADMIT

ATTACHED EXHIBITS
AND SUPPLEMENTAL DISCUSSION

Comes herein the respondents by the undersigned counsel before this

Honorable Office respectfully submit the foregoing Manifestation and Motion
to Admit the attached Exhibits and hereby state and aver that:

1. Upon review and perused of the records of this case submitted for
Decision of the Honorable Arbiter, undersigned noted that the
submitted exhibits to this Honorable Arbiter due to inadvertence of his
paralegal erroneously attached different exhibits, such as the quitclaim
waiver and release, final clearance and others, which is intended with
another worker and not in this case.

2. Which for that reason, respondent thru the undersigned seeks for the
indulgence of this Honorable Office and hereby submits the attached
Exhibits to rectify and replace the previous erroneously submitted
exhibits and hereby moves for the admission of the herein attached
correct exhibits for this case of complainant JUAN DELACRUZ as
follows:

a. The complainant’s (__________) Iqama Renewal Form as

Annex “A”;
b. The complainant’s Exit Interview Form as Annex “B” and “B-
1”;
c. The complainant’s Affidavit of Waiver and Release Annex “C”;
d. The complainant’s Release and Quitclaim as Annex “C-1”;
e. The complainant’s Final Clearance as Annex “D”;
f. The complainant’s Return Ticket as Annex “E”;

1
 The respondents hereby reiterate that the complainant renewed his
contract on his own term without the help of Corporation as evidenced by his
renewal of iqama based on Annex “A” as herein attached. Thus, the respondent
are not anymore privy beyond his contract with Corporation and therefore the
complainant’s claim of his two (2) months extension payment is without basis.
Besides, the complainant did not present any evidence to prove his claim.

It is an elementary rule in evidence that bare allegations can only be

proven as a fact when the same is supported by evidence. And that he who
alleges a fact must prove the same.

Secondly, the complainant’s claim for alleged wage differential is

negated by his prior voluntary execution of Affidavit of Waiver and Release
hereto attached Annex “C”; and Release and Quitclaim as Annex “C-1”
relieving he respondents of any liability in connection with his services
rendered with the foreign employer. And besides, the alleged wage differentials
are unaccounted and his single attachment of an alleged payslip as against with
his OEC was not authenticated. It does not represent the whole and entire
duration of his contract as well without supporting evidence, and contrary to his
executed final release and quitclaim which the settlement of the whole of his
dues and salaries before his returning home were all paid and settled to him.
Which is the very reason the complainant voluntarily executed his final release,
waiver and quitclaim.

Jurisprudence pronounces a valid waiver and quitclaims, to wit:

“Not all quitclaims are per sein valid or against

public policy. A quitclaim is invalid or contrary to
public policy only: (1) where there is clear proof that
the waiver was wrangled from an unsuspecting or
gullible person; or (2) where the terms of settlement
are unconscionable on their face. In instances of
invalid quitclaims, the law steps in to annul the
questionable waiver. Indeed, there are legitimate
waivers that represent the voluntary and reasonable
settlements of laborers’ claims that should be
respected by the Court as the law between the parties.
Where the party has voluntarily made the waiver, with
a full understanding of its terms as well as its
consequences, and the consideration for the quitclaim
is credible and reasonable, the transaction must be
recognized as a valid and binding undertaking, and
may not later be disowned simply because of a change
of mind. A waiver is essentially contractual.

From the foregoing, Complainant executed his quitclaims voluntarily and

they have fully understood the terms of the quitclaim and signed it in his own
volition.

2
 That in the case of Hypte R. Aujero vs Phil communications Satellite
Corp GR 193484, January 18, 2012 :

“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 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.”

Here, the Complainants failed to show with any clear proof that 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.

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. (Hypte R. Aujero vs Phil
communications Satellite Corp GR 193484, January 18, 2012).

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, it is hereby respectfully

prayed unto the Honorable Arbiter to Admit the attached correct annexes of the
respondents in replacement to those submitted in their Position Paper and Reply
and consider the same as evidence for the respondents for the proper disposition
of this case by the Honorable Arbiter.

3
 Other reliefs just and equitable are also prayed.

Manila for (Quezon City), February 20, 2019.

ATTY.

To the Labor Associate

NLRC Banawe QC

GREETINGS

Please take notice that the undersigned counsel submits the foregoing
manifestation with motion to admit for the reconsideration and approval of the
Honorable Arbiter upon receipt hereof.

ATTY.

EXPLANATION

Due to distance and lack of messengerial service at present time, the

service of the foregoing manifestation with motion to admit, copy for the
adverse party was made through registered mail in lieu of the preferred mode of
personal service.

ATTY.

Copy Furnished: