G.R. No. 139401 ; October 2, 2002
JMM PROMOTIONS AND MANAGEMENT, INC., petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, EMMANUEL BALANE AND CELSO PAGAPOLA-AN, respondents.

FACTS

In March 1993, petitioner JMM Promotions and Management, Inc., as an agency for Sam Jin Entertainment Co. Ltd., hired private respondents Emmanuel Balane and Celso Pagapola-an, along with Theresa Domatican, as entertainers (the “Fix Trio”) for a one-year contract in South Korea with a monthly salary of W400,000. A day before their scheduled departure on March 26, 1993, petitioner replaced vocalist Theresa Domatican with Bernadette Flores. The trio performed in Seoul for about four months, but their stint was short-lived due to poor performance, which private respondents attributed to Flores’ lack of singing talent. Sam Jin advised private respondents to return to the Philippines. Before their repatriation on July 23, 1993, private respondents signed statements dated July 21 and 22, 1993, prepared by their employer, expressing their agreement to return home due to difficulties and promising to refund petitioner W140,000 for processing fees. Upon returning, private respondents filed an illegal dismissal and money claim case with the POEA against petitioner and Sam Jin, arguing that the last-minute replacement of the vocalist led to the band’s failure and their premature contract termination. The POEA ruled in favor of private respondents, ordering joint and several payment for the unfinished contract portion, a decision affirmed by the NLRC and the Court of Appeals.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in sustaining the findings of the NLRC and POEA that private respondents were illegally dismissed and that the quitclaims they signed were invalid due to duress.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition. It held that the petition raised questions of fact, which are not reviewable in a petition for review under Rule 45, as the Supreme Court is not a trier of facts. The factual findings of the POEA, NLRC, and Court of Appeals, which were consistent in ruling that private respondents were illegally dismissed, are accorded great respect and finality. The Court found no compelling reason to reverse these findings. On the issue of the quitclaims, the Court ruled that they were invalid as they were executed under duress. Private respondents, facing repatriation in a foreign land with no work or income and under threat of not receiving return tickets, were in a position of inequality and desperation. Such quitclaims, exacted under pressure, are against public policy and null and void ab initio. Therefore, private respondents did not waive their right to pursue an illegal dismissal case. The assailed decisions were in harmony with law and evidence.