THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. 139401. October 2, 2002.]

JMM PROMOTIONS AND MANAGEMENT, INC., petitioner, vs.

COURT OF APPEALS, EMMANUEL BALANE AND CELSO
PAGAPOLA-AN, respondents.

Don P. Porciuncula for petitioner.

Vicente O. Gomez for respondent.

SYNOPSIS

Private respondents, overseas entertainers, filed before the POEA a

complaint for illegal dismissal and money claim for unfinished employment
contract against petitioner and Sam Jin arguing that petitioner was mainly
responsible for their aborted stint as a band in Seoul, Korea. According to them,
petitioner's last minute replacement of vocalist Domatican with Flores, a singer
of allegedly questionable talent, resulted in the band's poor performance. This,
in turn, led to the premature termination of the band's contract. Petitioner
denied any liability. It mainly anchored its defense to statements dated July 21,
1993 and July 22, 1993, signed by the private respondents, expressing their
agreement to go back home due to some difficulties in their contractual
undertaking and assenting freely and voluntarily to a refund of the amount of
W140,000 representing the balance of their processing fee. Private
respondents, however, contended that they were merely compelled to sign the
releases in favor of their employer. Finding that private respondents were
intimidated into signing the quitclaim and request for repatriation, the POEA
ruled favorably for the private respondents and against petitioner. The NLRC
and the Court of Appeals sustained the POEA. Hence this petition for review.
The Court found sufficient factual basis in the court a quo's ruling that
private respondents were merely pressured to sign the quitclaims/compromise
agreements. The Court found it incredible that, after all the expense and the
trouble they went through in seeking greener pastures abroad, private
respondents would suddenly without reason decide to return home and face, as
jobless people, a staggering debt of W140,000.00; that private respondents had
no choice but to sign the same because they were stranded in a foreign land
with no work and no income, and with their employer threatening not to give
them their return tickets to Manila if they refused to sign.
The Court had time and again held that quitclaims, waivers and/or
compete releases executed by the employees do not stop them from pursuing
their claims arising from unfair labor practice — if there is a showing of undue
pressure or duress. The basic reason for this is that such quitclaims, waivers
and/or complete releases, being figuratively exacted through the barrel of a
gun, are against public policy and, therefore, null and void ab initio. In this case,
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 the Court found that it was out of desperation and helplessness that private
respondents agreed to affix their signatures on the subject waivers.
Accordingly, that private respondents' signatures in the subject waivers or
quitclaims never foreclosed their right to pursue a case for illegal dismissal and
money claim against petitioner.

SYLLABUS

1. REMEDIAL LAW; APPEALS; APPEAL BY CERTIORARI; ONLY

QUESTIONS OF LAW MAY BE RAISED THEREIN; CASE AT BAR. — As an overture,
clear and unmistakable is the rule that the Supreme Court is not a trier of facts.
Just as well entrenched is the doctrine that pure issues of fact may not be the
proper subject of appeal by certiorari under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of
Court as this mode of appeal is generally confined to questions of law. We
therefore take this opportunity again to reiterate that only questions of law, not
questions of fact, may be raised before the Supreme Court in a petition for
review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. This Court cannot be tasked to go
over the proofs presented by the petitioners in the lower courts and analyze,
assess and weigh them to ascertain if the court a quo and the appellate court
were correct in their appreciation of the evidence. We note that petitioner's
arguments are based on factual and evidentiary matters which the Supreme
Court does not inquire into in an appeal on certiorari. The issues propounded by
petitioner involve only questions of fact previously raised and satisfactorily
ruled upon by the courts a quo.
2. ID.; EVIDENCE; FACTUAL FINDINGS OF COURT OF APPEALS;
CONCLUSIVE ON THE PARTIES AND NOT REVIEWABLE BY THE SUPREME COURT.
— The POEA and the NLRC were one with respect to the finding that private
respondents were illegally dismissed. Petitioner's obstinacy proved futile as the
Court of Appeals was likewise in agreement with the labor courts. "Findings of
fact by administrative agencies are generally accorded great respect, if not
finality, by the courts because of the special knowledge and expertise over
matters falling under their jurisdiction." Moreover, it is a time-honoured rule
that "the factual findings of the Court of Appeals are conclusive on the parties
and not reviewable by the Supreme Court — and they carry even more weight
when the Court of Appeals affirms the factual findings of the trial court." Any
exception to these principles, as set forth in the case of Ramos v. Pepsi-Cola
Bottling Co. must be clearly and convincingly proven. Petitioner, however, failed
to prove that this case falls within the exception. CIDaTc

3. ID.; ID.; FACTUAL FINDINGS OF THE POEA, THE NLRC AND THE
COURT OF APPEALS WILL NOT BE DISTURBED BY THE SUPREME COURT ABSENT
ERROR, MISTAKE OR MISAPPRECIATION OF FACTS. — This Court sees no
compelling reason to reverse the findings of the POEA, the NLRC and
respondent Court of Appeals for lack of any showing of error, mistake or
misappreciation of facts. This assailed decisions are in harmony with the law
and the evidence.
4. LABOR AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION; LABOR CODE; QUITCLAIMS;
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 EMPLOYEE'S CLAIM MAY BE GIVEN DUE COURSE WHERE VOLUNTARINESS OF
THE EXECUTION THEREOF IS AT ISSUE; PRIVATE RESPONDENTS WERE
PRESSURED TO SIGN QUITCLAIMS IN CASE AT BAR. — Although quitclaims have
long been accepted in this jurisdiction, when the voluntariness of the execution
of the quitclaim or release is squarely at issue, then the employee's claim may
still be given due course. The law looks with disfavor on quitclaims and releases
by employees who have been inveigled or pressured into signing them by
unscrupulous employers seeking to evade their legal responsibilities. We are
not ready to deviate from this rule for the reason that the courts a quo have
sufficient factual basis in ruling that private respondents were merely pressured
to sign the quitclaims/compromise agreements. The fact that private
respondents signed the subject statements releasing petitioner and Sam Jin
from any liability and assenting to a refund of the amount allegedly
representing the expenses incurred by petitioner, without any objection, does
not automatically mean the absence of duress, considering the pathetic
circumstances private respondents were in. We find it incredible that, after all
the expense and the trouble they went through in seeking greener pastures
abroad, private respondents would suddenly and without reason decide to
return home and face, as jobless people, a staggering debt of W140,000. The
private respondents had no choice but to sign. They were stranded in a foreign
land with no work and no income, and with their employer threatening not to
give them their return tickets to Manila if they refused to sign.
5. ID.; ID.; ID.; WHEN EXECUTED UNDER UNDUE PRESSURE OR
DURESS WILL NOT STOP EMPLOYEES FROM PURSUING THEIR CLAIMS ARISING
FROM UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE; CASE AT BAR. — We have time and again held
that quitclaims, waivers and/or complete releases executed by the employees
do not stop them from pursuing their claims arising from unfair labor practice —
if there is a showing of undue pressure or duress. The basic reason for this is
that such quitclaims, waivers and/or complete releases, being figuratively
exacted through the barrel of a gun, are against public policy and therefore null
and void ab initio. Accordingly, private respondents' signatures in the subject
waivers or quitclaims never foreclosed their right to pursue a case for illegal
dismissal and money claim. Employer and employee were not on equal footing.
As aptly observed by the Court of Appeals, private respondents' backs were to
the wall. Had they been in a position to object, private respondents would not
have agreed to reimburse petitioner the amount of W140,000 as no person in
his right mind, specially if he is in dire financial straights, would agree to such
an undertaking. Private respondents went abroad precisely to escape poverty.
Obviously it was out of desperation and helplessness that private respondents
agreed to affix their signatures on the subject waivers. They are therefore
deemed not to have waived any of their rights. Renuntiatio non praesumitur."

DECISION

CORONA, J : p

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com

 In the hope of attaining a better future, many Filipinos succumb to the
lure of opportunities in distant shores. Not all, however, are able to realize their
dreams. A number of them return with neither money nor glory. For these
unlucky souls, they take home with them twice the misery which they yearned
to elude in the first place. When the dream is gone, there is nothing left but a
bitter pill to swallow. TcHCDI

Before us is a petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court of

the decision 1 dated June 25, 1999 of the Court of Appeals, which denied the
petition for certiorari of the decision dated January 30, 1996 of the National
Labor Relations Commission filed by herein petitioner JMM Promotions and
Management, Inc.

This petition is an offshoot of an illegal dismissal case filed by private

respondents Emmanuel Balane (Balane) and Celso Pagapola-an (Pagapola-an)
in the POEA seeking justice for the plight they suffered as overseas
entertainers. Private respondents charged petitioner with causing injury to their
rights.
The facts of this case follow.

In March 1993, Sam Jin Entertainment Co. Ltd. (Sam Jin), through its
agency, petitioner JMM Promotions and Management, Inc., hired private
respondents and Theresa Domatican (Domatican) as entertainers for
deployment in Korea. The three entertainers, as a musical band, assumed the
name "Fix Trio." Balane played the keyboard while Pagapola-an handled the
guitar. Domatican was the band's original vocalist.

The employment contract provided that private respondents were to

receive a monthly salary of four hundred thousand won (W400,000) plus a
round trip fare for a one-year contract.
The band was set to leave on March 26, 1993. However, a day before the
band's departure, on March 25, 1993, petitioner assigned Bernadette Flores
(Flores) instead of Domatican to perform with the band in Korea.
Private respondents, together with Flores, performed as a group for about
four months in Seoul, South Korea. Their stint, however, was short-lived
because of poor performance. Private respondents laid the blame on Flores'
lack of singing talent. Sam Jin thereafter advised private respondents to return
to the Philippines. Flores stayed behind.
On July 23, 1993, private respondents were repatriated to the Philippines.
Before their departure from Korea, private respondents signed a statement
dated July 21, 1993, 2 prepared by their employer, which expressed their
agreement to go back home due to some difficulties in their contractual
undertaking and another statement dated July 22, 1993, 3 which contained their
promise to refund petitioner the sum of one hundred forty thousand won
(W140,000) representing the balance of their processing fee.
Private respondents, after arrival in the Philippines, filed with the POEA an
illegal dismissal case and money claim for the unfinished employment contract
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 against petitioner and Sam Jin. They claimed that petitioner was mainly
responsible for their aborted stint as a band in Seoul, Korea. The last-minute
replacement of Domatican with Flores, a singer of allegedly questionable talent,
resulted in the band's poor performance. This, in turn, led to the premature
termination of the band's contract.

Petitioner denied any liability or responsibility for the untimely

termination of private respondents' employment contract. It mainly anchored
its defense to the statements dated July 21, 1993 and July 22, 1993, signed by
private respondents, arguing that the latter voluntarily expressed their desire
to go back to the Philippines.

The POEA ruled in favor of private respondents, ordering petitioner and

Sam Jin to jointly and severally pay private respondents the amount of
US$1,049.98 each, representing the compensation for the unfinished portion of
the employment contract, 4 based on the following:
"After a judicious appraisal of the attendant facts and evaluation
of the evidence on record, we find that what actually transpired in this
case was an unsuccessful and a losing entertainment business venture
on account of the entertainers' failure to put up a good show or
performance before the customers and clients of the club owners.
Complainants blamed the respondents for this fiasco by attributing the
cause thereof to the inability of the singer to render her part of the trio
as she was not a singer nor had she undergone testing or audition
before her engagement as such. What was originally contracted for
was the real singer/talent and member of the contracted trio, Theresa
Domatican. These facts have not been contradicted or explained by the
respondents except the allegation that complainants were having
difficulty in their employment, hence they signed a rescission
agreement.
"Respondents' Annexes 'A' and 'B', the statements executed by
complainants, were however disputed by the latter, claiming that they
were forced under the circumstances to sign the same. They were put
in a situation where they can not (sic) longer perform effectively
because of a singer who cannot sing. If they do not perform, they will
not be paid. Thus they were sent home by their employer and as a pre
requisite for their repatriation, they were made to sign the
aforementioned statements citing difficulty in their employment as
cause of their discharge. Complainants were definitely pushed against
the wall and had no other recourse but to comply with their employer's
orders in order to be repatriated.

"It is also worthy to note that one of the complainants, Emmanuel

Balane, corroborated their stance by executing a statement in the
presence of our Consul at the Philippine Embassy in Seoul, Korea. This
statement is further supported by the Statement dated July 22, 1993
(Annex 'B', Joint Affidavit of Complainants) which was signed by Kang
Ho Suck, Cho Jin Young and Shin Bok Hu." 5

The NLRC affirmed the decision of the POEA on appeal, holding that the
findings of the POEA were supported by substantial evidence.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 Twice thwarted but still unyielding, petitioner filed with the Court of
Appeals a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court seeking the
reversal of the NLRC decision.

Petitioner's hope of vindication in the Court of Appeals failed as the latter

found no reason to disturb the findings of the NLRC. The Court of Appeals
attributed fault to the petitioner for the band's poor performance abroad when
it replaced the band's original vocalist Domatican with Flores at the "eleventh
hour." Thus, it held:
"The effect of petitioner's fault should not be used as the excuse
to terminate its contract of employment with private respondents." 6

Aggrieved by the ruling of the Court of Appeals, petitioner now comes

before us with the following —
"GROUNDS IN SUPPORT OF THE PETITION
a - The law is clear that an aggrieved party, before the appellate
body may consider such as the findings of facts, been able to
substantiate the matter arrived at by preponderance of evidence.
b - That public respondent cannot shied (sic) away from the
mandated rule in the appreciation of evidence; the proceedings before
the inferior quasi-judicial bodies is one of mere submission of affidavits
whereon no open testimony is taken to cross-examine the witnesses;
uprightness of the findings is, therefore, questionable and subject to
review." 7

Petitioner argues that the Court of Appeals erroneously sustained the

findings of fact of the NLRC. Private respondents could not have performed with
Flores for four months in Korea if they did not initially do well as a band. Fights
within and among themselves, therefore, caused their misfortunes.
Petitioner disputes the observation of the Court of Appeals that private
respondents were intimidated into signing the quitclaim and request for
repatriation. They were paid their salaries and they even committed to pay
petitioner the amount of W140,000 as reimbursement for expenses incurred in
their deployment to Seoul, Korea.
Petitioner also avers that the execution of statements critical of petitioner
before the Philippine Consul in Seoul was not reflected in the records. There
being no evidence thereof, private respondents' stories were bereft of factual
basis. Furthermore, the identity of the Koreans who allegedly signed and
backed up private respondents' statements was neither ascertained nor
proved.
Petitioner asserts that the quitclaims executed by private respondents on
July 21, 1993 and July 22, 1993 were valid and binding. The existence of fraud,
mistake or duress in their execution has not been established. Thus, documents
attesting that a compromise agreement has been reached between the parties
remain valid in the absence of any proof to the contrary.

On the other hand, due to alleged financial difficulties, 8 private

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 respondent Balane filed his comment through a mere attorney-in-fact and
contended that the petition for review is merely a dilatory tactic employed by
petitioner. 9
Petitioner's arguments border on despair.

As an overture, clear and unmistakable is the rule that the Supreme Court
is not a trier of facts. Just as well entrenched is the doctrine that pure issues of
fact may not be the proper subject of appeal by certiorari under Rule 45 of the
Revised Rules of Court as this mode of appeal is generally confined to
questions of law. 10 We therefore take this opportunity again to reiterate that
only questions of law, not questions of fact, may be raised before the Supreme
Court in a petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. This Court
cannot be tasked to go over the proofs presented by the petitioners in the
lower courts and analyze, assess and weigh them to ascertain if the court a quo
and the appellate court were correct in their appreciation of the evidence. 11
We note that petitioner's arguments are based on factual and evidentiary
matters which the Supreme Court does not inquire into in an appeal on
certiorari. 12 The issues propounded by petitioner involve only questions of fact
previously raised and satisfactorily ruled upon by the courts a quo.

The POEA and the NLRC were one with respect to the finding that
private respondents were illegally dismissed. Petitioner's obstinacy proved
futile as the Court of Appeals was likewise in agreement with the labor
courts. "Findings of fact by administrative agencies are generally accorded
great respect, if not finality, by the courts because of the special knowledge
and expertise over matters falling under their jurisdiction." 13 Moreover, it is
a time-honoured rule that "the factual findings of the Court of Appeals are
conclusive on the parties and not reviewable by the Supreme Court – and
they carry even more weight when the Court of Appeals affirms the factual
findings of the trial court." 14 Any exception to these principles, as set forth
in the case of Ramos v. Pepsi-Cola Bottling Co. 15 must be clearly and
convincingly proven. Petitioner, however, failed to prove that this case falls
within the exception.
Nonetheless, we find it necessary to discuss the issue of validity of the
quitclaims. In the instant case, private respondents claim that they were merely
compelled to sign the releases in favor of their employer. Petitioner, on the
other hand, asserts that private respondents entered into the compromise
agreement freely and voluntarily and should not, at this late stage, be
permitted to renounce their signed commitments.
No reasonable argument, however, can possibly sustain petitioner's
position. Although quitclaims have long been accepted in this jurisdiction, when
the voluntariness of the execution of the quitclaim or release is squarely at
issue, then the employee's claim may still be given due course. 16 The law looks
with disfavor on quitclaims and releases by employees who have been
inveigled or pressured into signing them by unscrupulous employers seeking to
evade their legal responsibilities. 17
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 We are not ready to deviate from this rule for the reason that the courts a
quo have sufficient factual basis in ruling that private respondents were merely
pressured to sign the quitclaims/compromise agreements. The fact that private
respondents signed the subject statements releasing petitioner and Sam Jin
from any liability and assenting to a refund of the amount allegedly
representing the expenses incurred by petitioner, without any objection, does
not automatically mean the absence of duress, considering the pathetic
circumstances private respondents were in. We find it incredible that, after all
the expense and the trouble they went through in seeking greener pastures
abroad, private respondents would suddenly and without reason decide to
return home and face, as jobless people, a staggering debt of W140,000. The
private respondents had no choice but to sign. They were stranded in a foreign
land with no work and no income, and with their employer threatening not to
give them their return tickets to Manila if they refused to sign.
Thus, we have time and again held that quitclaims, waivers and/or
complete releases executed by the employees do not stop them from pursuing
their claims arising from unfair labor practice — if there is a showing of undue
pressure or duress. The basic reason for this is that such quitclaims, waivers
and/or complete releases, being figuratively exacted through the barrel of a
gun, are against public policy and therefore null and void ab initio. Accordingly,
private respondents' signatures in the subject waivers or quitclaims never
foreclosed their right to pursue a case for illegal dismissal and money claim.
Employer and employee were not on equal footing. 18 As aptly observed by the
Court of Appeals, private respondents' backs were to the wall. Had they been in
a position to object, private respondents would not have agreed to reimburse
petitioner the amount of W140,000 as no person in his right mind, specially if
he is in dire financial straights, would agree to such an undertaking. Private
respondents went abroad precisely to escape poverty. Obviously it was out of
desperation and helplessness that private respondents agreed to affix their
signatures on the subject waivers. They are therefore deemed not to have
waived any of their rights. Renuntiatio non praesumitur." 19
This Court sees no compelling reason to reverse the findings of the POEA,
the NLRC and respondent Court of Appeals for lack of any showing of error,
mistake misappreciation of facts. 20 This assailed decisions are in harmony with
the law and the evidence.
WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
Puno, Panganiban and Morales, JJ., concur.
Sandoval-Gutierrez, J., is on leave.

Footnotes
1. Penned by Associate Justice Hilarion L. Aquino and concurred in by Associate
Justices Ramon U. Mabutas, Jr. and Wenceslao I. Agnir, Jr. in CA-G.R. SP No.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 50793.
2. Annex "A"; Rollo, p. 21.
3. Annex "B"; Rollo, p. 22.
4. Rollo, p. 37.
5. Ibid., pp. 35-36.
6. Ibid., p. 57.
7. Ibid., p. 14.
8. Rollo, pp. 62, 65.
9. Rollo, p. 65.
10. Valmonte vs. Court of Appeals, 303 SCRA 278 (1999).
11. Tinio vs. Manzano, 307 SCRA 460 (1999).
12. Villarico vs. Court of Appeals, 309 SCRA 193 (1999).
13. Calvo vs. Bernardito, G.R. No. 134741, December 19, 2001.
14. Borromeo vs. Sun, 317 SCRA 176 (1999).
15. 19 SCRA 289 (1967); see also Batingal vs. Batingal, G.R. No. 128636,
February 1, 2001.
16. Philippine Carpet Employees Association vs. Philippine Carpet
Manufacturing Corporation, 340 SCRA 383 (2000).
17. Veloso vs. Department of Labor and Employment, 200 SCRA 201 (1991).
18. Cariño vs. Agricultural Credit and Cooperative Financing Administration, 18
SCRA 183 (1966).
19. Agoy vs. National Labor Relations Commission, 252 SCRA 588 (1996);
supra.
20. Villarico vs. Court of Appeals, supra.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com