G.R. No. 236496 - F.F. CRUZ & CO., INC., VS. JOSE B. GALANDEZ, DOMINGO I. SAJUELA, AND MARLON D. NAMOC.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

Accordingly, petitioner and its officers were ordered to jointly and solidarily pay respondents the total monetary award of P179,864.69 [15] representing their full backwages reckoned from the time of their dismissal until December 16, 2011, 13 th month pay, as well as 10% attorney's fees. [16] Feeling aggrieved, petitioner appealed [17] to the NLRC, and in a Decision [18] dated July 17, 2012 (NLRC) Decision) affirmed the LA's ruling finding respondents to have been illegally dismissed, and as such, are entitled to reinstatement with backwages . [19] In this regard, the NLRC recomputed respondents' backwages and attorney's fees in the total amount of P363,047.68 [20] subject to further re-computation until the latter's reinstatement . [21] Petitioner's motion for reconsideration [22] was denied in a Resolution [23] dated September 21, 2012. Thus, in the letters dated February 1, 2013 [24] and March 14, 2013, [25] respondents sought to enforce the afore-mentioned NLRC Decision, demanding petitioner to reinstate them and to pay their full backwages which, as of January 17, 2013, was computed at P520,061.68. They also proposed to be paid separation pay equivalent to one (1) month pay for every year of service should reinstatement be no longer possible. [26] On March 25, 2013, petitioner undertook to settle and pay respondents their adjudged monetary award [27] in the total aggregate amount of P363,047.68, for which the latter executed a Quitclaim and Release [28] in consideration thereof before a Notary Public. Believing to have settled in full its monetary obligations to respondents, petitioner filed a Manifestation [29] dated April 4, 2013 to the NLRC seeking to declare the case closed and terminated. [30] In an Order [31] dated April 30, 2013, the NLRC approved the subject quitclaims, and accordingly, declared the case closed and terminated after finding the amicable settlement between petitioner and respondents to be " [i]n consideration of the full satisfaction of the award in favor of the complainants as embodied in Our, 17 July 2012 Decision ," [32] and not contrary to law, morals, and public policy. Respondents moved for reconsideration [33] averring that: ( a ) they were not assisted by counsel when they executed the questioned quitclaims; ( b ) they were defrauded by petitioner into believing that, after signing the same, they would be reinstated to their former positions in accordance with the NLRC Decision ; and (c) they were made to believe that an arrangement for the said settlement had been made and there was no need to consult their lawyer. [34] By way of opposition, [35] petitioner countered that respondents freely, voluntarily, and knowingly executed the subject quitclaims, and that the absence of their counsel during execution did not invalidate the contract. Petitioner further claimed that respondents were advised of the nature and consequences of the quitclaim before signing the same, and denied defrauding them. It contended tha