Affidavits of Desistance: When Can Employees Reclaim Their Rights?

In labor disputes, employers sometimes present affidavits of desistance or quitclaims to show that employees have settled their claims. But not every piece of paper signed by a worker ends the case. The Supreme Court, in Solgus Corporation v. Court of Appeals (G.R. No. 157488, February 6, 2007), clarified when such documents deserve weight—and when they should be set aside to allow employees to pursue their rights.

The Facts of the Case

Several security guards filed complaints for illegal dismissal and underpayment of salaries against Solgus Corporation, their employer. During the proceedings before the Labor Arbiter, the company submitted memoranda claiming that some of the guards had executed affidavits of desistance, indicating that their complaints had been amicably settled.

The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaints of those who supposedly signed the affidavits. On appeal, however, the NLRC reversed the decision and ordered the reinstatement of the complainants. The Court of Appeals modified this ruling, reinstating only the two employees who had actually signed the appeal memorandum.

The Issue

The central question was whether the affidavits of desistance executed by the employees were valid and should bar their claims for illegal dismissal and monetary benefits.

The Ruling: Quitclaims Are Not Automatically Valid

The Supreme Court denied the employer's petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals' ruling. In doing so, the Court reiterated the established rule from Periquet v. National Labor Relations Commission (G.R. No. 91298, June 22, 1990): not all waivers and quitclaims are invalid. If the agreement was voluntarily entered into and represents a reasonable settlement, it is binding. But where there is clear proof that the waiver was wangled from an unsuspecting or gullible person, or the terms are unconscionable, the law will annul the transaction.

Applying this standard, the Court found the affidavits in question to be highly suspect for several reasons:

First, the affidavits were presented only at the submission of the employer's memorandum—long after the position papers had been filed. The NLRC Rules of Procedure require that position papers cover all claims and be accompanied by supporting documents. The belated presentation deprived the employees of the opportunity to challenge the authenticity of the affidavits.

Second, the employees denied executing the affidavits, and the notaries public before whom they were allegedly acknowledged issued certifications that no such affidavits were acknowledged before them. This cast serious doubt on the genuineness of the documents.

Third, the employer's explanation that the affidavits could not be located for years was deemed specious. Documents so material to a case, involving waivers of rights, should have been kept with utmost care.

The Burden on Employers

The Court emphasized that quitclaims, releases, and other waivers of benefits granted by law in favor of workers should be strictly scrutinized to protect the weak and the disadvantaged. The employer bears the duty to prove that such quitclaims were voluntary. The mere absence of physical coercion does not automatically mean the employee freely consented.

Practical Takeaways

• Affidavits of desistance are not magic documents. They are binding only if voluntarily executed with full understanding and for credible, reasonable consideration.
• Timing matters. Presenting an affidavit for the first time after position papers have been filed, without prior reference to it, is a red flag that courts will not ignore.
• Authenticity is key. If an employee denies execution and the notary confirms the document was not acknowledged, the affidavit will likely be disregarded.
• Employers carry the burden of proof. It is the employer's responsibility to show that a quitclaim was voluntary and fair.
• Employees who do not appeal cannot get affirmative relief. In this case, only the employees who signed the appeal memorandum could be reinstated; the others were deemed satisfied with the Labor Arbiter's decision.

This article is general information and not legal advice. For your specific situation, consult a lawyer or ask ASG Legal AI.