respondent's misrepresentations, petitioner could not have been reasonably expected to acquire knowledge of the fact that the said properties were already titled. As a consequence, petitioner may not be charged with any knowledge of any subsequent entry of an encumbrance which may have been annotated on the said titles, much less any change of ownership of the properties covered thereby. As such, the Court agrees with petitioner that the reckoning period for prescription of petitioner's action should be from the time of actual discovery of the fraud in 1995. Hence, petitioner's suit for damages, filed on February 20, 1996, is well within the four-year prescriptive period.

[SP No. 110250. May 12, 2010]

Antonio MagSIPOC, petitioner, vs. NATIONAL LABOR Relations Commission and SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION, respondents.

twenty-five (25) years, Magsipoc never questioned his continuous receipt of the salary of a daily-paid employee, instead of a monthly-paid salary to which a Foreman was entitled. It is highly contrary to human experience that an employee would keep his silence and endure the unjust and illegal receipt of lower salary despite his due entitlement to an obviously higher salary by virtue of his promotion. He had more than two (2) decades to complain about the non-payment of the appropriate salary, but, even during his separation from service, he did absolutely nothing about it. More to the point, the mere fact that he waited for almost three (3) years from receipt of the separation benefits, or more than twentyseven (27) years after his supposed promotion, before complaining about the same casts doubt on his claim of promotion and entitlement to any additional benefits.

AND

3. ID.; QUITCLAIMS; A QUITCLAIM, WITH CLEAR CONTENTS UNAMBIGUOUS AND EXECUTED FOR A VALID CONSIDERATION RECEIVED IN FULL BY THE EMPLOYEE WHO SIGNED THE SAME, CANNOT BE LATER INVALIDATED BECAUSE ITS SIGNATORY CLAIMS THAT HE WAS PRESSURED INTO SIGNING ON ACCOUNT OF DIRE FINANCIAL NEED.With respect to the quitclaim that Magsipoc voluntarily executed, We hold that the same is valid and binding and ultimately bars him from recovering any other monetary claims to which he may have been entitled to by reason of his employment. There is no showing that he was forced or duped by SMC into signing the Receipt and Release. What is more, in his sworn quitclaim, he freely declared that he received in full his retirement or separation pay as well as all other amounts due him and was voluntarily releasing SMC from any and all claims with respect to his employment. It bears stressing that a quitclaim, with clear and unambiguous contents and executed for a valid consideration received in full by the employee who signed the same, cannot be later invalidated because its signatory claims that he was pressured into signing it on account of his dire financial need. When it is shown that the person executing 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. Without a doubt, Magsipoc is not entitled to any additional separation benefits or any other monetary claims.

ORIGINAL ACTION in the Court of Appeals. The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

Frederico P. Quevodo for petitioner.

Amando R. Bermejo, Castell and Bermejo for private respondent.

PIZARRO, J.:

This petition for certiorari1 seeks to nullify

the Decision2 of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) which affirmed the Decision3 of the Labor Arbiter in NLRC-NCR Case No. 00-09-09911-07. Also challenged is the Resolution denying reconsideration thereof.

The Facts5

On November 24, 1962, Antonio Magsipoc (Magsipoc) was employed as a daily-paid Filler Operator by San Miguel Corporation (SMC) assigned at its Polo Brewery Plant in Valenzuela City.

Subsequently, on August 8, 1979, Magsipoc was temporarily assigned as Bottling Production Foreman Trainee with authority to sign the timecards and the vacation leaves of his immediate subordinates.8

On February 6, 2004, or after almost forty-two (42) years of service, Magsipoc informed Eileen Miranda of his intention to retire from employment and to avail of the

benefits under the retirement plans of SMC.10

Thereafter, on August 13, 2004, Magsipoc was orally advised of his severance from employment under the Involuntary Separation Package of SMC effective September 15, 2004. At the time of his separation from employment, his salary amounted to Seven Hundred FiftyFour Pesos and Eleven Centavos (PhP754.11) per day, or an equivalent of Twenty-Two Thousand Six Hundred TwentyThree Pesos and Thirty Centavos (PhP22,623.30) per month. Accordingly, on October 26, 2004, in consideration of his

forty-two(42) years and four (4) months of service, he received as separation or retirement pay the amount of Two Million Four Hundred Forty-Seven Thousand Six Hundred Fifty-Two Pesos and Fifty-Four Centavos (PhP2,447,652.54). Subsequently, he executed a Release and Receipt11 acknowledging receipt of the retirement pay and discharging SMC from any and all claims or cause/s of action relative to his employment.

After almost three (3) years from the execution of the Receipt and Release, or on September 10, 2007, however, a complaint for payment of separation benefits differentials, interest, and attorney's fees, was filed by Magsipoc before the Labor Arbiter against SMC and/or Wilfredo Camaclang12 (collectively, Private Respondents).

In support of his complaint, Magsipoc avers that, when he was promoted as Bottling Production Foreman, he continued to be a daily-paid employee until his separation from service, instead of being a monthly-paid employee. He claims that Ernesto Camorongal, a co-employee who was promoted as Foreman at about the same time of his promotion and was assigned at the same brewery plant, was a monthly-paid employee who received the amount of Thirty Thousand Fifty-Five Pesos (PhP30,055.00) per month. 13 Thus, he was entitled to the payment of additional

separation benefits as a monthly-paid employee, and not as a daily-paid employee. Moreover, Magsipoc asserts that, by virtue of the execution of the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) between SMC and llaw at Buklod ng Manggagawa – SMC Chapter14 (IBM-SMC),

he was likewise entitled to the CBA Grant of One Hundred Twenty-Five Thousand Pesos (PhP125,000.00) as a lump sum payment in lieu of a wage increase from July 1, 2004 to June 30, 2005.

By way of opposition thereto, the Private Respondents counter that Magsipoc was only appointed as a Bottling Production Foreman Trainee; and, that the same was merely temporary in nature and was subsequently recalled. They also add that his claim of promotion is utterly false as his position at the time of his separation was that of a Bottling Crew at the Packaging Department Multi-Product Line of SMC, and not that of a Foreman. Further, his position as Bottling Crew was confirmed by him in his letter to Eileen Miranda signifying his intent to retire from said position and the Receipt and Release he previously executed. 15 The Private Respondents maintain that, even assuming he was promoted as Foreman, he is now barred from recovering any additional benefits considering his voluntary execution of a valid release and quitclaim in favor of SMC. To allow him to recover despite the execution of the same would amount to unjust enrichment on his part.

The Private Respondents argue that Magsipoc is also not entitled to the СВА grant since the same was not given to employees who were involuntarily separated from the service the year before June 14, 2005, the date of execution of the Memorandum Agreement between SMC and IBM-SMC. 16 Additionally, since he failed to prove that Wilfredo Camaclang acted in

bad faith or with malice, the latter cannot be held liable for the payment of his monetary claims. Therefore, the Private Respondents pray for the dismissal of the instant complaint.

On May 27, 2008, the Labor Arbiter rendered judgment in favor of the Private Respondents by dismissing the complaint for payment of separation benefits differentials and other monetary claims of Magsipoc, viz:

IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, instant case is dismissed for lack of merit!

SO ORDERED.17

Finding the judgment unsatisfactory, Magsipoc appealed the same to the NLRC.18 In his appeal, he alleges that the Labor Artiber committed serious errors amounting to grave abuse of discretion in failing to award the separation pay differentials despite being entitled thereto due to his promotion as Foreman. Magsipoc also insists that his promotion was never recalled by SMC, thus, entitling him to the separation benefits of a Foreman, which is a monthlypaid supervisory position. Also, he contends that the quitclaim he executed cannot bar his recovery of the separation pay benefits and CBA grant. 19

On December 23, 2008, however, the NLRC denied the appeal for lack of merit and affirmed the judgment of the Labor Arbiter. 20 The motion for reconsideration of the same was likewise denied. 21 Hence, the instant petition.

The Issue:

In seeking the grant of his petition, Magsipoc raises his lone assignment of error, to wit:

IT WAS GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION FOR THE PUBLIC RESPONDENT NLRC TO AFFIRM THE DENIAL OF THE RECOMPUTATION OF PETITIONER'S BENEFITS DESPITE CLEAR ENTITLEMENT THERETO.22

17 Id., pp. 80-81.

18 Dated July 7, 2008; Id., pp. 161-168.

19 Memorandum of Appeal dated July 7, 2008;

Rollo, pp. 161-168.

20 Id., pp. 28-34. 21 Id., pp. 37-38.

22 Id., p. 6.