G.R. No. 124841 July 31, 1998
PEFTOK INTEGRATED SERVICES, INC., petitioner, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and EDUARDO ABUGHO, ET. AL., respondents.

FACTS

The case originated from a decision by Labor Arbiter Noel Augusto S. Magbanua ordering petitioner PEFTOK Integrated Services, Inc. and Timber Industries of the Philippines, Inc. (TIPI) and Union Plywood Corporation to pay, jointly and solidarily, the monetary claims of the private respondent security guards-employees. The decision was partially executed, with TIPI paying fifty percent (50%) of the obligation, leading some employees to execute quitclaims for that portion. Subsequently, some private respondents (Eduardo Abugho, Claro Mendez, Leonardo Daluperi) executed a waiver on October 13, 1989, barring all claims against PEFTOK before June 30, 1989. Later, on May 29, 1992, Eduardo Abugho, Fidel Sabellina, Leonardo Daluperi, Claro Mendez, and Reynaldo Maasin executed another waiver/quitclaim renouncing claims against PEFTOK for the period ending March 15, 1998. However, these same employees later executed affidavits stating that the quitclaims were prepared by PEFTOK, written in English which they did not understand, and they were forced to sign them under threat of not receiving their salaries or facing termination. The private respondents sought an alias writ of execution to claim their full benefits. Labor Arbiter Henry F. Te granted the alias writ on June 19, 1995. Petitioner PEFTOK appealed the labor arbiter’s order to the NLRC, but its appeal was filed late (on July 17, 1995, beyond the 10-day period from receipt on June 30, 1995). The NLRC dismissed PEFTOK’s appeal. PEFTOK then filed this petition for certiorari directly.

ISSUE

The primary issues are: (1) Whether the petition for certiorari should be dismissed for being premature due to failure to file a motion for reconsideration with the NLRC and for late filing of the appeal to the NLRC; (2) Whether the quitclaims/waivers executed by the employees are valid and can bar their claims; and (3) Whether the posting of a cash or surety bond is mandatory for perfecting an appeal from the labor arbiter’s monetary award.

RULING

The Supreme Court DISMISSED the petition for lack of merit, AFFIRMED the NLRC decision dated February 26, 1995, and UPHELD the alias writ of execution. The ruling was based on the following: First, the appeal to the NLRC was filed out of time, as the 10-day period for appeal is mandatory and jurisdictional. Second, the petition for certiorari was premature because petitioner failed to file a motion for reconsideration with the NLRC, violating the principle of exhaustion of administrative remedies and the requirement under Rule 65 that there be no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy. Third, the quitclaims/waivers are invalid as they were executed involuntarily; the employees signed them out of fear of not being paid or being terminated, and the documents were in English, which they did not understand, and were not explained to them. The Court reiterated that quitclaims are frowned upon as contrary to public policy, especially when executed by necessitous individuals. Fourth, the posting of a cash or surety bond is a mandatory and unconditional requirement to perfect an appeal from a labor arbiter’s monetary award, intended to assure employees of payment and discourage dilatory appeals.