8/10/2019 Saro Cam

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/saro-cam 1/1

SAROCAM VS INTERORIENT MARITIME 493 SCRA 502 (2006)

FACTS:

On June 27, 2000, petitioner Benjamin Sarocam was hired by Interorient Maritime and Demaco United Ltd., for 12-month contract as ―bosun‖ on borad M/V Despina. While navigating to China, Sarocam suffered lumbar sprain when he

accidentally fell from a ladder. On Nov 15, 2000, he was examined and was found to have neuromyositis anddiabetes. The examining physician prescribed medicine and recommended signing of and hospitalization. He wasrepatriated on Nov 30, 2000.On Dec 5, 2000, petitioner was referred to the company-designated physician.Sarocam was given medicine for his back pain and diabetes and was advised to return for a checkup. On Dec 13,he returned to the clinic with normal results; petitioner was then declared ―fit for duty.‖ On Mar 20, 2001, petitioner executed a release and quitclaim in favor of his Interorient Maritime where heacknowledged receipt of $405 as sick wages. However on Nov2001, petitioner filed a complaint with NLRC fordisability benefit, illness allowance/reimbursement of medical expenses, damages and fees. To support his claim, hepresented medical certificates issued by his 3 personal doctors, recommending Grade VIII disability under POEAschedule of disability grading.LA dismissed the complaint citing that he was not entitled to disability benefits becausehe was declared fit for duty and had previously executed a release and quitclaim in favor of his employers and hadalready received his sickness allowance. NLRC affirmed the same.

Sarocam‘s argument: the quitclaim he executed is invalid, as the amount he received was much lower than what he should havereceived under the POEA standard employment contract. Quitclaims are frowned upon by the courts as they arecontrary to public policy.

ISSUES:

W/N SAROCAM‘S EXECUTION OF A RELEASE AND QUITCLAIM ESTOP HIM FROM CLAIMING DISABILITY BENEFITS UDNER THE POEA STANDARDEMPLOYMENT CONTRACT

HELD:

While the petitioner may be correct in stating that quitclaims are frowned upon for being contrary to public policy, the

Court has, likewise recognized legitimate waivers that represent voluntary and reasonable settlement of a worker‘s claim whichshould be respected as the law between the parties. Where the person making the waiver has done so voluntarily, with a fullunderstanding thereof, and consideration for the quitclaim is credible and reasonable, the transaction must be recognized as being a validand binding undertaking.In the present case, Sarocam wrote the release and quitclaim with his own hand. From the document itself, the

element of voluntariness in its execution is evident. He also appears to have fully understood the contents of the

document he was signing, as the important provision thereof had been relayed to him in Filipino. 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 the settlement areunconscionable on its face, the law will step in to annul the questionable transaction. But where it is shown that the person makingthe waiver did so voluntarily, and the consideration for the quitclaim is credible and reasonable, the transaction mustbe recognized as a valid and binding undertaking. Let it be emphasized that the constitutional policy to provide full protection tolabor is not meant to be a sword to oppress employers. The commitment of this Court to the cause of labor does not preventus from sustaining the employer when it is in the right.