Case Digest - Roberto G. Famanila v. CA

by Jhacel Batobalonos
    
ROBERTO G. FAMANILA v. CA, GR NO. 150429, 2006-08-29 (/juris/view/ca90c?
user=gZGk5R3AxRUR4YXZpV3lIRG5lMDdqQmRWdHUwR1dHSkdwL3F5UzNha2JMQT0=)
Facts:
In 1989, respondent NFD International Manning Agents, Inc. hired the services of petitioner Roberto G.
Famanila as Messman[4] for Hansa Riga, a vessel registered and owned by its principal and co-respondent,
Barbership Management Limited.
On June 21, 1990, while Hansa Riga was docked at the port of Eureka, California, U.S.A. and while petitioner
was assisting in the loading operations, the latter complained of a headache. Petitioner experienced dizziness
and he subsequently collapsed. Upon... examination, it was determined that he had a sudden attack of left
cerebral hemorrhage from a ruptured cerebral aneurysm.[5] Petitioner underwent a brain operation and he
was confined at the Emmanuel Hospital in Portland, Oregon, U.S.A. On July 19, 1990, he... underwent a
second brain operation.
Owing to petitioner's physical and mental condition, he was repatriated to the Philippines. On August 21,
1990, he was examined at the American Hospital in Intramuros, Manila where the examining physician, Dr.
Patricia Abesamis declared that he "cannot go back to sea duty and... has been observed for 120 days, he is
being declared permanently, totally disabled."[6]
Thereafter, authorized representatives of the respondents convinced him to settle his claim amicably by
accepting the amount of US$13,200.[7] Petitioner accepted the offer as evidenced by his signature in the
Receipt and Release dated February 28,... 1991.[8] His wife, Gloria Famanila and one Richard Famanila, acted
as witnesses in the signing of the release.
On June 11, 1997, petitioner filed a complaint[9] with the NLRC which was docketed as NLRC OCW Case No.
6-838-97-L praying for an award of disability benefits, share in the insurance proceeds, moral damages and
attorney's fees.
Acting
Executive Labor Arbiter Voltaire A. Balitaan dismissed the complaint on the ground of prescription.
When the motion for reconsideration[11] was denied by the NLRC in its resolution dated June 29, 1998,[12]
petitioner filed a petition for certiorari with this Court.
refer the case to... the Court of Appeals
Issues:
THE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OR
EXCESS OF JURISDICTION IN UPHOLDING THE VALIDITY OF THE RECEIPT AND RELEASE SINCE
PETITIONER'S CONSENT THERETO WAS VITIATED THEREBY MAKING THE SAME VOID AND
UNENFORCEABLE.
Ruling:
The petition lacks merit.
A vitiated consent does not make a contract void and unenforceable. A vitiated consent only gives rise to a
voidable agreement. Under the Civil Code, the vices of consent are mistake, violence, intimidation, undue
influence or fraud.[16] If consent is given... through any of the aforementioned vices of consent, the contract
is voidable.[17] voidable contract is binding unless annulled by a proper action in court.[18]
Petitioner contends that his permanent and total disability vitiated his consent to the Receipt and Release
thereby rendering it void and unenforceable. However, disability is not among the factors that may vitiate
consent.
In the absence of such proof of vitiated consent, the validity of the Receipt and Release must be upheld.
In the case at bar, there is nothing in the records to show that petitioner's consent was vitiated when he
signed the agreement.
the document entitled receipt and release which was attached by petitioner in his appeal does not show on its
face any violation of law or public policy. In fact, petitioner did not present any proof to show that the
consideration for the same is not reasonable and... acceptable.
However, 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 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 the 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,
[22] as in this case.
To be valid and effective, waivers must be couched in clear and unequivocal terms, leaving no doubt as to the
intention of those giving up a right or a benefit that legally pertains to them.[23] We have reviewed the terms
and conditions contained in the
Receipt and Release and we find the same to be clear and unambiguous. The signing was even witnessed by
petitioner's wife, Gloria T. Famanila and one Richard T. Famanila.
Principles:
ART. 291. Money Claims. All money claims arising from employer-employee relations accruing during the
effectivity of this Code shall be filed within three (3) years from the time the cause of action accrued;
otherwise they shall be forever barred.

Case Digest - Roberto G. Famanila v. CA

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case Digest - Roberto G. Famanila v. CA

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case Digest - Roberto G. Famanila v. CA

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

by Jhacel Batobalonos

refer the case to... the Court of Appeals

The petition lacks merit.

You might also like