330 Phil. 291
PANGANIBAN, J.:
The dispositive portion of the arbiter's decision[3] reads:Respondents appealed from said decision alleging serious errors in the findings of fact of the labor arbiter and lack of basis in law and in fact for the computation of the monetary award. The appeal was filed on time, but without a cash or surety bond. Instead, respondents filed a motion for reconsideration with prayer that respondent company be allowed to file the bond after the monetary award was recomputed. Petitioners filed opposition to the appeal with motion to dismiss, alleging that (i) respondents were afforded full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence, but that they did not avail of the same; and (ii) the appeal was not perfected due to the failure to file the required supersedeas bond.
"WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing considerations, judgment is hereby rendered, as follows:
1. Ordering the respondents to reinstate immediately all the thirty-six (36) complainants to their former positions under the same terms and conditions prevailing prior to their dismissal, or at the option of the respondents, to reinstate them in the payroll, without loss of seniority rights and other privileges and benefits, plus full backwages from the time of their illegal dismissal on the second week of June 1990 up to their actual reinstatement, partially computed in the amount of P27,768.00 for each complainant or a total of P999,648.00 for all the 36 complainants (computation of one year backwages only);
2. Ordering respondents to pay the following monetary claims:
a. Overtime pay P1,998,817.26
b. 5-days incentive leave pay 30,940.00
c. 13th month pay 140,194.88
3. Claims for salary differentials, holiday pay and rest day pay are dismissed for lack of sufficient evidence; and,
4. Claim for payment of damages is denied for lack of merit."
"That we, the undersigned and complainants of NLRC Case No. RAB-III-06-1589-90, all of legal ages, residents of San Fernando, Pampanga, has made, constituted and appointed Mr. Francisco E. Viola to be our true and lawful attorney-in-fact to prosecute and negotiate our case now pending in the Regional Arbitration Branch No. III of the NLRC, San Fernando, Pampanga, bearing Case No. RAB-III-06-1589-90 entitled UNICANE WORKERS UNION-CLUP AND ITS MEMBERS vs. UNICANE FOOD PRODUCTS MFG. CORP. AND ITS OWNER/MANAGER BENIDO ANG, respondents, as well as other case/s that may arise in the course of our representation, to do and perform the following acts and deeds, namely:The quitclaim and release,[5] which was executed by Francisco Viola as attorney-in-fact of petitioners on an unspecified date in October 1991, provided:
To represent us in the prosecution of the aforementioned case/s including other case/s that may arise in the course of their representation, to make demands, to compromise, to collect and receive any and all sums of money, whether in cash or check, which are now or hereafter may become due us (or) which may be deemed proper and necessary with full power and authority to execute and deliver any and all kinds of documents in connection thereof "
"1. That after a careful reassessment of the circumstances, we do hereby irrevocably RELEASE, WAIVE AND DISCHARGE the Unicane Food Products Mfg. Co. and its officer BENIDO ANG from all actions, claims, demands and right of action of whatever nature that now exists or may hereafter develop arising out of and as a consequence of or by virtue of our employer-employee relationship;Attached to said document was a photocopy of four China Banking Corporation checks, each for P25,000.00, totalling P100,000.00 in favor of Viola, as settlement of complainants' claims against respondent company.
2. That we are authorizing our representative FRANCISCO VIOLA, as evidenced by a Special Power of Attorney duly executed by us to empower said Mr. Viola to sign on our behalf, to transact and negotiate as stated in the Special Power of Attorney, which is attached hereto and marked as Exhibit- '1'."[6a]
The dispositive portion of its assailed Decision[7] reads:
"WHEREFORE, premises considered, the settlement entered into by Francisco Viola with respondent as evidenced by the quitclaim and release is hereby approved and the Special Power of Attorney is likewise approved and declared valid. Consequently, the appeal is hereby dismissed, the case having been settled amicably.
"The opposition to the quitclaim and release is hereby dismissed for lack of merit."
Petitioners charged the NLRC with grave abuse of discretion: -Paraphrasing the foregoing, we re-state the issues in this case thus: (1) can an appeal of a monetary award be perfected without an appeal bond? and (2) is the quitclaim and release (i.e., the compromise agreement) valid and binding?"I
x x x IN VACATING THE DECISION OF THE LABOR ARBITER A QUO WHICH HAS LONG BECOME FINAL AND EXECUTORY FOR FAILURE OF THE PRIVATE RESPONDENTS TO POST THE REQUIRED CASH OR SURETY BOND.II
x x x IN APPROVING THE RELEASE AND QUITCLAIM EXECUTED BY FRANCISCO VIOLA ATTORNEY-IN-FACT OF THE INDIVIDUAL PETITIONERS IN CONSIDERATION OF THE SUM OF ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND (P100,000.00) PESOS WHICH AMOUNT IS VERY MUCH UNCONSCIONABLE CONSIDERING THE AMOUNT AWARDED BY THE LABOR ARBITER TO PETITIONERS IS TWO MILLION ONE HUNDRED SIXTY-NINE THOUSAND NINE HUNDRED FIFTY-SIX PESOS AND TWENTY-TWO CENTAVOS (P2,169,969.22).III
x x x IN APPROVING THE SPECIAL POWER OF ATTORNEY EXECUTED BY THE INDIVIDUAL PETITIONERS TO FRANCISCO VIOLA AND THAT THE RELEASE AND QUITCLAIM EXECUTED BY FRANCISCO VIOLA BINDS THE PETITIONERS."
"ART 223. Appeal. - Decisions, awards or orders of the Labor Arbiter are final and executory unless appealed to the Commission by any or both parties within ten (10) calendar days from receipt of such decisions, awards, or orders. xxxIts indispensability has already been settled in Viron Garments Mfg. Co., Inc. vs. NLRC,[8]where this Court clarified that:
In case of a judgment involving a monetary award, an appeal by the employer may be perfected only upon the posting of a cash or surety bond issued by a reputable bonding company duly accredited by the Commission in the amount equivalent to the monetary award in the judgment appealed from.
x x x x x x x x x"
"The intention of the lawmakers to make the bond an indispensable requisite for the perfection of an appeal by the employer, is clearly limned in the provision that an appeal by the employer may be perfected 'only upon the posting of a cash or surety bond'. The word 'only' makes it perfectly clear, that the lawmakers intended the posting of a cash or surety bond by the employer to be the exclusive means by which an employer's appeal may be perfected.This requirement is intended to discourage employers from using the appeal to delay, or even evade, their obligation to satisfy their employee's just and lawful claims.[9]
The word 'may' refers to the perfection of an appeal as optional on the part of the defeated party, but not to the posting of an appeal bond, if he desires to appeal." (italics in the original text)
In the decision in question, respondent Commission premised that:On this basis, it then decided that:
Respondent (company) in turn, filed a Reply to the Opposition to Quitclaim and release and alleged therein that the field representative of CLUP by the name of Francisco Viola was also the representative of the complainants in the above-entitled case; that the counsel of CLUP, herein oppositor to the quitclaim even confirmed that said Francisco Viola was authorized to act in behalf of the Federation (CLUP) and of the complainants; that having been vested with authority, x x x Viola can make compromise in the name of the Federation which complainants confirmed with their execution of the special power of attorney in favor of x x x Viola, that when x x x Viola negotiated for the settlement of the case for P100,000.00 on the strength of the said special power of attorney and subsequently filed before this office the Quitclaim and Release, his acts are not contrary to law, morals, public policy and public order; that the opposition to the quitclaim and release was not verified by any of the complainants; and that the opposition to the quitclaim and release is purely on the basis of the personal interest of the oppositor since the same is an internal matter between the oppositor and x x x Viola."
"On the award of the other monetary claims, taking into account the settlement entered by the complainants' representative, We find the same substantially satisfied. We therefore, approve and declare the quitclaim and release valid and binding, the same not being contrary to law, morals, public policy and public order."Respondent Commission seems to have ignored the fact that complainants has been awarded by the labor arbiter more than P2 million. It should have been aware that had petitioners pursued their case, they would have been assured of getting said amount, since, absent a perfected appeal, complainants were already entitled to said amount by virtue of a final judgment. Compared to the over P2 million award granted by the arbiter, the compromise settlement of only P100,000.00 is unconscionable, to say the least.
"Even assuming for the sake of argument that the quitclaim had foreclosed petitioner's right over the death benefits of her husband, the fact that the consideration given in exchange thereof was very much less than the amount petitioner is claiming renders the quitclaim null and void for being contrary to public policy. The State must be firm in affording protection to labor. The quitclaim wherein the consideration is scandalously low and inequitable cannot be an obstacle to petitioner's pursuing her legitimate claim. Equity dictates that the compromise agreement should be voided in this instance."Not all quitclaims are per se invalid as against public policy. But, 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, then the law will step in to annul the questionable transaction.[13] Indeed, the State must protect labor against the irresponsible actions of even its own officials.
"x x x sa pamamagitan din ni FRANCISCO VIOLA na siyang pinagkatiwalaan namin sa aming kaso/usapin na sa kasalukuyan ay napag(-)alaman namin sa aming Abogado/kinatawan na ang naturang kaso/usapin ay na-dismiss sa pamamagitan ng kaunting halaga na tinanggap ni FRANCISCO VIOLA na siya naming pinagtiwalaan, subalit sa aming pagtitiwala ay kanya palang idinismiss sa pamamagitan ng aming ipinagkaloob na 'SPECIAL POWER OF ATTORNEY' na aming ipinagkatiwala sa naturang tao at hindi lubos na ipinaliwanag sa amin na ang aming kaso/usapin ay kanyang i-dididmiss, pangalawa, hindi pala niya ipinaalam sa pinakamataas na opisyal ng pederasyon CLUP at sa abogado ng aming kaso/usapin, ang kanyang pagsasagawa basta nalaman na lamang namin na siya ay apat na bisis ng tumanggap ng "Check of payment" na nasa pangalan niya (Francisco Viola) x x x."We noted also that the special power of attorney was executed about two weeks before the promulgation of the decision of the labor arbiter. During such interval, a compromise could have been reached to settle the case. But no such agreement was arrived at prior to the decision granting the monetary awards in excess of P2 million. For the attorney-in-fact of the prevailing parties to then sign away and give up their hard-won victory worth more than P2 million, for a measly P100,000.00, without the knowledge of petitioners, is proof beyond doubt that the special power of attorney in question had been obtained, and the compromise agreement entered into, in fraud of petitioners.