Aujero v. PhilComSat, G.R. No.

193484, January 18, 2012

FACTS:
Aujero started working for Philcomsat as an accountant in the latter's Finance Department after
34 years in the service, Aujero applied for early retirement and approved. He is entitled to
receive his benefits equivalent for half of his monthly salary for every year of service amounting
to 9,439,327.91. after 3 years, Aujero filed a complaint for unpaid retirement benefits. On his
claim, his retirement benefits should be 14,015,055.00.

On May 2006, Labor Arbiter issued decision in favor of Aurejo directing Philcomsat to pay him
4,575,727.09

NLRC granted Philcomsat's ppeal and reversed and set aside Labor Arbiter's decision.
According to the NLRC, the petitioner failed to allege adduce evidence that Philcomsat
employed means to vitiate his consent to the quitclaim. The petitioner is well-educated, a
licensed accountant and was Philcomsat's Senior Vice-President prior to his retirement; he
cannot therefore claim that he signed the quitclaim without understanding the consequences
and implications thereof.

Decision of NLRC was filed and its surety bond posted beyond the prescribed period of ten (10)
days.

Petitioner accused NLRC of grave abuse of discretion in giving due course to the respondent's
belated appeal by relaxing the application of one of the fundamental requirements of appeal.

CA held that NLRC not act with grave abuse of discretion.

ISSUES:
Whether the delay in the filing of Philcomsat's appeal and posting of surety bond is inexcusable;
and

Whether the quitclaim executed by the Aurejo in Philcomsat's favor is valid, thereby foreclosing
his right to institute any claim against Philcomsat.

RULING:
Where the Court adhered to the strict implementation of the rules and considered them
inviolable, it shows that the patent lack of merit of the appeals render liberal interpretation
pointless and naught.

On the second issue, the court held that Not all waivers and quitclaims are invalid as against
public policy. If the agreement was voluntarily entered into and represents a reasonable
settlement, it is binding on the parties and may not later be disowned simply because of a
change of mind. It is only where there is clear proof that the waiver was wangled from an
unsuspecting or gullible person, or the terms of settlement are unconscionable on its face, that
the law will step in to annul the questionable transaction.

this Court finds the quitclaim in dispute to be legitimate waiver.