G.R. No. 126717 February 11, 1999
Great Pacific Employees Union and Rodel P. De La Rosa, petitioners, vs. Great Pacific Life Assurance Corporation, Labor Arbiter Jovencio Ll. Mayor Jr. and National Labor Commission (Third Division), respondents.

FACTS

Great Pacific Life Employees Union (UNION) and Great Pacific Life Assurance Corporation (GREPALIFE) entered into a CBA effective until 30 June 1993. Negotiations for renewal deadlocked, leading the UNION to file a notice of strike and eventually stage a strike on 3 November 1993. GREPALIFE alleged violent incidents during the strike, including blockades and illegal searches. It required all strikers to explain why they should not be disciplined. UNION President Isidro Alan B. Domingo submitted an explanation, while Vice President Rodel P. de la Rosa and others ignored the directive. GREPALIFE dismissed Domingo, de la Rosa, and other strikers on 16 November 1993.
To resolve the dispute, the parties executed a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) on 15 February 1994. The MOA granted amnesty and reinstatement to other dismissed strikers but expressly reserved the right of Domingo and de la Rosa to question the legality of their dismissals before the NLRC. As a condition for the amnesty of others, Domingo and de la Rosa submitted letters of resignation, which they explicitly stated were not a waiver of their legal rights. They subsequently filed a complaint for illegal dismissal.

ISSUE

Whether the execution of the MOA and the submission of resignation letters by Domingo and de la Rosa constitute a waiver of their right to contest the legality of their dismissal.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court ruled that Domingo and de la Rosa did not waive their right to sue for illegal dismissal. The legal logic is anchored on the explicit terms of the MOA and the context of the resignations. Paragraph 4(b) of the MOA specifically reserved their right to question the validity of their dismissal before the NLRC. This provision is clear and controlling.
Furthermore, their resignation letters were submitted under explicit protest, stating the act was solely because it was demanded by the company and did not constitute a waiver of their rights. A waiver of rights must be voluntary, knowing, and intelligent. The resignations here were a compelled quid pro quo for the amnesty of their fellow union members, executed under economic coercion to end the strike and secure a new CBA. They were not voluntary acts of relinquishment. Therefore, the conditional resignations, coupled with the express reservation in the MOA, preserved their cause of action. The NLRC decision dismissing their complaint was reversed, and the case was remanded for determination on the merits of the illegal dismissal charge.