G.R. No. L-8373. September 28, 1956

The undisputed facts which gave rise  to the present case  are as  follows:   On May 11, 1946,  the  appellant was employed by the defendant  Manila Polo Club through the intervention of its treasurer, the other defendant Alex D. Stewart, as bookkeeper and  accountant with a salary of P375 per month.  On August 19, 1949, this salary was increased to P400 allocated as  follows: P375 for regular pay, and  P25.00 premium over  regular pay  for work on Sundays and legal holidays, overtime and other special duty. He was also granted two weeks leave with pay each year and 12 days sick leave with pay in any one year for proven illness (Exhibit 3).

On March 26,  1951,  plaintiff requested for leave with pay for  a period  from April 1 to August  1,  which was granted, and on  April  17, 1951, while still  on  vacation, plaintiff received a letter (Exhibit 7)  from Mr. H. J. MacLean, manager of the Club,  notifying  him that the Club would allow only two weeks sick leave for the  year. 1951 and  would give one month’s severance pay,  for which a check for P405.00 was enclosed.  Not being agreeable with his separation from the Club, on June 16, 1951, plaintiff brought the matter to the Department of Labor where he filed the corresponding claim—which was docketed as Case No.  1224—for the amount of P10,000 for overtime work and other privileges  granted to him by the defendant Club in its communication to  the plaintiff,  dated August  19, 1951, whereby plaintiff’s salary was  increased to P400.00 allocated as above indicated.  The  Department of Labor took cognizance of the  matter and, after the corresponding proceedings, on  September 24,  1951, the  Secretary of Labor ordered the defendant Manila  Polo Club to pay to the herein plaintiff the sum of P10,623.24.  The record does not show what transpired during the  intervening period from September 24, 1951 up to November 9,  1951  when plaintiff and his Attorney Constancio  Leuterio entered into an amicable settlement and  subscribed to the following receipt: 

‘Received from Gibbs, Chuidian &  Quasha, as attorneys for the Manila Polo Club, Chartered Bank of  India, Australia & China Check No. 192045 in the sum of P7,000 and payable to Constancio Leuterio, as attorney for Alejandro Mercader, in full settlement of any  and all claims, including  overtime work,  vacation  and sick leave privileges, which  said Alejandro Mercader has or may have against  the Manila Polo Club.

(Sgd.)  ALEJANDRO MERCADER

(Sgd.) CONSTANCIO LEUTERIO.”

Accordingly,  the  aforesaid  case  No. 1224 was completely closed.

Nevertheless and  despite the  settlement recited in the aforequoted receipt, on January 9,  1953, plaintiff filed with the  Court of First  Instance  of Manila his present complaint,  stating therein  that while he was  in the  service of the  defendant Manila Polo Club with  a monthly compensation at the rate of P375, assurance of the permanence of his  position as long as he, did not commit any criminal act  such as embezzlement, misappropriation of funds, with 15  days vacation and  15  days sick  leave with  pay for every year’s  service, the defendant Club, arbitrarily and capriciously,  terminated plaintiffs services in violation of the  contract  of service  and thus he was maliciously and arbitrarily deprived of his monthly income of P405 from the  time of his separation up  to the filing  of the complaint. Plaintiff also alleged that as  a. result of the malicious and arbitrary act of the defendant, he suffered untold mental anguish, serious  anxiety, wounded feelings, moral shame, social humiliation and besmirched reputation, and prayed that the defendant be ordered to pay him,  by way of actual and compensatory damages, the sum of P5,000 per annum from the date of his separation from the service on May 15,  1951 up  to the final termination of the case;  the sum of P50,000, by way of moral  damages; the sum of P2,000, by  way of attorney’s fees; and P200 by way of litigation expenses.

The  defendant Manila Polo Club, in its answer  to the complaint practically  did not  deny the  principal  allegations of the  complaint  regarding the  employment  of the plaintiff by the defendant, the vacation  leave granted to plaintiff  and his separation from the service, although it was claimed that said separation was due to the fact that the  plaintiff was very much behind  in his work.   Defendants  also  pleaded that the plaintiff is not entitled to recover any amount from  the defendants, for on November 9, 1951 the plaintiff, in consideration of the sum of P7,000, released the defendant Manila Polo Club from all claims arising from his  employment and his separation from the defendant Club.  And, by way of counterclaim, defendant prayed for the sum of P5,000  as attorney’s fees on the allegation that, owing to the filing of the complaint by the plaintiff, the defendant had been compelled to retain the  services of counsel  for the protection of his rights.

After  the  parties had joined issues, the case was tried and  the  Court of First Instance of Manila dismissed the case on  the ground  that the preponderance  of evidence militated in favor of the contention of the defendants  and that plaintiff’s  claim  was  already  settled for P7,000  by virtue of the execution of  the receipt,  Exhibit 1, quoted above, whereby the plaintiff renounced any and all claims he may  have against the  defendant Club.   Not  satisfied with this decision, plaintiff appealed claiming that the court a quo erred: 

1. In holding that the overtime pay of  the herein plaintiff-appellant  had been  impliedly waived.

 

2. In holding that the  position  of  the  plaintiff-appellant was not permanent.

 

3. In  awarding  excessive  damages to the defendants-appellees.

We have  carefully  scrutinized the record of  the case, the  pleadings of the parties  and the evidence supporting them and find no reason for disturbing the  decision appealed from.  The settlement  recited in  Exhibit 1, signed by the plaintiff together with his counsel Constancio Leuterio, does constitute an absolute  waiver of  any and all claims including overtime  work,  vacation and  sick leave privileges which the plaintiff had against the Manila Polo Club; consequently, by virtue of said settlement, plaintiff lost any action  against the defendant  Manila Polo Club in connection  with his employment and separation from said Club.

Plaintiff has lengthily discussed in his brief about the nature of his  employment and laboriously argued on the permanency of his position as an employee of the defendant Manila Polo Club; but, in our opinion, all these questions are completely immaterial for, whatever be the nature of his employment, whether permanent or temporary, the facts of  the case show that he  has no longer any  action against the defendants because he entered with the  latter in an amicable settlement whereby he renounced and waived any and all claims against them.

As to  defendant Alex D. Stewart, the evidence  shows that he only acted as agent of the defendant  Manila Polo Club in securing the services of the plaintiff and  therefore he cannot be made responsible for the separation  of the plaintiff from his  employment.

In his third assignment of error, plaintiff assails the award of P600 attorney’s fees in favor of the defendants contending that in filing the present action  he  tried  to protect his rights.  We notice that in the decision no  reason was given by the lower  court for awarding the fees  in question; neither is there  in the  record any indication that the present action was malicious and intended only to cause prejudice to the defendants; hence, we believe that there is no sufficient ground for ordering the plaintiff to pay the fees  in question.

Wherefore,  the decision appealed from in so far as  it dismisses the  complaint is hereby  affirmed, and  reversed as it orders the payment of P600 in favor of the defendant for litigation expenses  and attorney’s fees.  No pronouncement with regard to costs.

Padilla, Montemayor, Bautista Angela, Labrador, Concepcion, and Felix, JJ., concur.