G.R. No. 225862, December 05, 2018
Oliver V. Vergara, Petitioner, vs. CDM Security Agency, Inc. and Vilma Pablo, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Oliver Vergara was employed as a security guard by respondent CDM Security Agency and was assigned to a bank. On March 7, 2013, an altercation occurred at his post with a co-employee, Hipolito Fernandez, wherein Vergara allegedly pointed a shotgun at Fernandez. The next day, CDM served a Memorandum on Vergara, relieving him from his post and directing him to report to the main office. Vergara refused to receive the Memorandum. He later filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and monetary claims.
During a preliminary conference before the Labor Arbiter, the parties entered into an amicable settlement. Vergara received P11,000.00 as full settlement, was furnished with SSS documents, and respondents agreed not to file any case regarding the incident. Vergara subsequently signed a Quitclaim and Release with Motion to Dismiss. However, in a subsequent conference, Vergara manifested respondents’ partial non-compliance, prompting the Labor Arbiter to direct the submission of position papers.

ISSUE

The core issues are: (1) whether Vergara was illegally dismissed, and (2) whether the quitclaim he executed is valid and binding.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition, affirming the Court of Appeals. The quitclaim executed by Vergara is valid and binding. The Court reiterated the established rule that a quitclaim is a valid and binding agreement, provided it was executed voluntarily, with a reasonable consideration, and absent any fraud or deceit. Vergara does not dispute the authenticity of the document, which was subscribed before the Labor Arbiter. There is no allegation or proof that he was coerced. The settlement amount of P11,000.00, while not substantial, was credible and reasonable under the circumstances, considering the nature of his claims and the fact that he was a minimum wage earner.
Regarding illegal dismissal, the Court found Vergara failed to substantiate his claim. The fact of dismissal must be established by positive and overt acts of the employer. Here, aside from Vergara’s allegation of verbal termination, no evidence supports that he was actually dismissed. The Memorandum merely relieved him from his post and required him to report to the office—an act which could constitute a reassignment or the start of a disciplinary process, not a definitive termination. In any case, the valid quitclaim effectively bars his claim for illegal dismissal. The respondents’ alleged subsequent non-compliance with certain settlement terms does not invalidate the quitclaim itself but gives rise to a separate cause of action for its enforcement, which was not the proper subject of the instant petition.