GR 98273; (October, 1991) (Digest)
G.R. No. 98273 October 28, 1991
Clarita V. Cruz, petitioner, vs. National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA), EMS Manpower & Placement Service (Phil.), Abdul Karim Al Yahya, and Travellers Insurance, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Clarita V. Cruz, a domestic helper in Kuwait, filed a complaint against her recruitment agency and foreign principal for underpayment of salary, non-payment of vacation leave, excessive placement fee, and physical abuse. She alleged she was paid only $120 monthly instead of the contracted $250, worked 18-hour days, was beaten, and received her total salaries only hours before her forced departure.
The private respondents raised the defense of settlement based on an Affidavit of Desistance executed by Cruz. In this document, she stated the case was a misunderstanding and she was no longer interested in pursuing her complaint. Based on this affidavit, the POEA dismissed her complaint, a decision affirmed by the NLRC.
ISSUE
Whether the Affidavit of Desistance is valid and constitutes a bar to the petitioner’s claims.
RULING
The Supreme Court ruled the Affidavit of Desistance is null and void. The legal logic rests on two grounds: the questionable voluntariness of its execution and the unconscionable terms of the settlement. First, the petitioner’s allegation that she was assisted by a person who was not a lawyer was not squarely refuted by the respondents, casting doubt on the presumption of regularity and the clarity of her consent. The Court emphasized the State’s duty to afford protection to labor, particularly to overseas workers who are vulnerable to exploitation.
Second, and decisively, there was a gross disparity between the settlement amount and the original claim. The receipt showed Cruz accepted only P2,400 for one month’s unpaid vacation leave. This was scandalously low compared to her total claim of P88,840 for salary differentials, leave pay balance, and excess placement fee. Following established jurisprudence, a quitclaim or settlement is invalid if the consideration is inequitable and unconscionable, as it is contrary to public policy. The Court found it difficult to believe she knowingly waived her substantial claim for a minuscule amount. Consequently, the resolutions of the NLRC were set aside and the case was remanded to the POEA for further proceedings.