G.R. No. 216132 , January 22, 2020
AL-MASIYA OVERSEAS PLACEMENT AGENCY, INC. AND ROSALINA ABOY, PETITIONERS, V. HAZEL A. VIERNES, RESPONDENT.

FACTS

Respondent Hazel A. Viernes was deployed to Kuwait on November 7, 2010, by petitioner Al-Masiya Overseas Placement Agency, Inc. to work as a domestic helper with a monthly salary of US$400 for two years. Her employment with her first, second, and third employers did not succeed due to disagreements in working conditions and visa issues. On December 16, 2010, she sought assistance from the Philippine Embassy in Kuwait. Subsequently, on an unspecified date, she was subjected to coercive circumstances by employees of a local agency, Al Rekabi, including the confiscation of her phone and being forced to write an admission that her employers treated her well. On February 7, 2011, respondent signed a resignation letter, an Affidavit of Quitclaim and Desistance, and a final settlement before Assistant Labor Attaché Ofelia M. Castro-Hudson in Kuwait. She claimed she signed these documents as a precondition for the release of her passport and plane ticket, which were in petitioners’ possession. She returned to the Philippines on February 12, 2011, and filed a complaint for illegal or constructive dismissal against petitioners.
The Labor Arbiter (LA) ruled in favor of respondent, awarding salary differentials, six months’ salary for the unexpired portion of her contract, moral and exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) initially dismissed petitioners’ appeal due to procedural defects but later granted reconsideration and affirmed the LA’s decision. The Court of Appeals (CA) dismissed petitioners’ Petition for Certiorari, upholding the NLRC’s findings.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in upholding the NLRC’s decision, which disregarded the resignation letter, Affidavit of Quitclaim and Desistance, and final settlement executed by respondent before Assistant Labor Attaché Ofelia M. Castro-Hudson, and instead found that respondent was illegally dismissed.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the CA decision. The Court held that the petition raised questions of fact, which are not reviewable in a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45. The factual findings of the NLRC, as affirmed by the CA, are conclusive and binding. The Court found no exceptional circumstances to warrant a re-examination of the facts.
On the substantive issue, the Court ruled that the subject documents (resignation letter, quitclaim, and settlement) were invalid. Quitclaims and waivers are commonly frowned upon as contrary to public policy and do not bar employees from pursuing claims for illegal dismissal unless proven to be voluntary and made with a full understanding of their rights. The circumstances showed respondent signed the documents under duress, as a condition for retrieving her passport and ticket. The involvement of a labor attaché does not automatically validate such documents if voluntariness is absent. The CA correctly found that respondent’s pursuit of the complaint contradicted petitioners’ claim of voluntary resignation. Thus, the awards for illegal dismissal, including salary for the unexpired portion of the contract and damages, were upheld.