Affidavits of Desistance: When Can Employees Reclaim Their Rights?

TLDR: This case clarifies that affidavits of desistance, where employees seemingly give up their claims, are not always binding. Courts will scrutinize these documents, especially if there’s evidence of coercion, lack of understanding, or procedural irregularities. Employees can reclaim their rights if the affidavit was not genuinely voluntary.

G.R. No. 157488, February 06, 2007

Introduction

Imagine being pressured to sign a document that effectively forfeits your right to fair wages and job security. This is the reality for some Filipino workers who are asked to sign “affidavits of desistance,” seemingly giving up their claims against employers. But are these documents always binding? This case of Solgus Corporation vs. Hon. Court of Appeals delves into the circumstances under which an employee can reclaim their rights, even after signing such an affidavit.

This case involves several security guards who filed complaints against Solgus Corporation for illegal dismissal and underpayment of wages. The corporation presented affidavits of desistance, claiming the employees had amicably settled their claims. However, the employees argued they never genuinely agreed to these settlements. The Supreme Court ultimately sided with the employees, highlighting the importance of voluntariness and fair procedure in such agreements.

Legal Context: Protecting the Vulnerable

Philippine labor law is designed to protect employees, recognizing the inherent power imbalance between employers and workers. This protection extends to situations where employees are asked to waive their rights. The law mandates that any waiver or quitclaim must be voluntary, knowing, and made for reasonable consideration. This means employees must fully understand the implications of what they are signing and receive fair compensation in return.

Key provisions governing these situations include:

• Article 4 of the Labor Code: “All doubts in the implementation and interpretation of the provisions of this Code, including its implementing rules and regulations, shall be resolved in favor of labor.”
• Article 227 of the Labor Code: “Any compromise, waiver or release of any claim by the employee shall be subject to the approval of the Secretary of Labor, or his duly authorized representative.”

The Supreme Court, in Periquet v. National Labor Relations Commission, laid down clear guidelines for determining the validity of affidavits of desistance:

“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. But where it is shown that the person making the waiver did so voluntarily, with full understanding of what he was doing, and the consideration for the quitclaim is credible and reasonable, the transaction must be recognized as a valid and binding undertaking.”

Case Breakdown: A Fight for Fair Treatment

The security guards, including Diosdado Telin and Alejandro Alagos, were hired by Solgus Corporation and later filed complaints for illegal dismissal and underpayment. Solgus presented affidavits of desistance, claiming the employees had settled their claims. However, Telin and Alagos denied executing these affidavits.

The case proceeded through the following stages:

1. Labor Arbiter: Initially dismissed the complaints, upholding the validity of the affidavits of desistance.
2. National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC): Reversed the Labor Arbiter’s decision, finding the affidavits questionable and ordering reinstatement and backwages for all complainants.
3. Court of Appeals: Modified the NLRC’s decision, reinstating only Telin and Alagos (as they were the only ones who appealed) but affirming the NLRC’s skepticism towards the affidavits.
4. Supreme Court: Affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision, emphasizing the importance of voluntariness in affidavits of desistance and the procedural irregularities in their presentation.

The Supreme Court highlighted several key points:

• Late Presentation of Evidence: Solgus presented the affidavits late in the proceedings, depriving the employees of a chance to properly challenge their authenticity.
• Doubtful Genuineness: The employees denied executing the affidavits, and certifications from the notaries public indicated no record of such acknowledgments.

The Court quoted NLRC Rules of Procedure to emphasize that Solgus should have presented these affidavits in their initial position paper and not as an afterthought. The Supreme Court emphasized:

“The belated presentation of the purported Affidavits of Desistance deprived complainants Telin and Alagos of the opportunity to debunk the authenticity of said Affidavits of Desistance before the Labor Arbiter in gross violation of the rules of fair play.”

The Court also stated:

“Quitclaims, releases and other waivers of benefits granted by law or contracts in favor of workers should be strictly scrutinized to protect the weak and the disadvantaged. The waivers should be carefully examined, in regard not only to the words and terms used, but also to the factual circumstances under which they have been executed.”

Practical Implications: Protecting Your Rights

This case serves as a crucial reminder to both employers and employees regarding affidavits of desistance and quitclaims. Employers must ensure these documents are executed voluntarily and with full understanding by the employee. Employees should be wary of signing any document without fully understanding its implications and seeking legal advice if necessary.

Key Lessons:

• Voluntariness is Key: Affidavits of desistance must be genuinely voluntary, not coerced or based on misinformation.
• Fair Procedure: Evidence must be presented in a timely manner, allowing all parties a fair opportunity to respond.
• Seek Legal Advice: Employees should seek legal counsel before signing any document that waives their rights.

Frequently Asked Questions

Q: What is an affidavit of desistance?

A: It’s a document where a complainant states they are no longer pursuing a case, often implying a settlement has been reached.

Q: Is an affidavit of desistance always binding?

A: No. Courts will scrutinize the circumstances under which it was signed to ensure voluntariness and understanding.

Q: What factors make an affidavit of desistance questionable?

A: Coercion, lack of understanding, unfair settlement terms, and procedural irregularities in its presentation.

Q: What should I do if I’m asked to sign an affidavit of desistance?

A: Read it carefully, understand its implications, and seek legal advice before signing.

Q: What if I signed an affidavit of desistance but now regret it?

A: You may still be able to pursue your claims if you can prove the affidavit was not voluntary or that there were irregularities in its execution.

Q: How does this case affect employers?

A: Employers must ensure that any settlement and affidavit of desistance is entered into fairly and voluntarily by the employee, or the agreement may be challenged.

ASG Law specializes in labor law and litigation. Contact us or email hello@asglawpartners.com to schedule a consultation.