EDUARDO TALLA, PETITIONER, VS. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION (NLRC), THIRD DIVISION, AND FIRST UNITED METAL WORKS CORPORATION, RESPONDENTS.

Is an employee precluded from filing any claim against the
employer after his resignation and the execution of a quitclaim accompanying
the same?  This is the issue raised in
this petition.

Petitioner was employed
as a salesman of private respondent on or about December 1, 1982, with a monthly salary of P1,300.00 and
a 3% commission on all of his sales.  On August 31, 1984 he submitted his
letter of resignation and a quitclaim releasing the private respondent from any money claims he may have.  After some time, petitioner filed a complaint
in the Ministry of Labor and Employment against private respondent for
non-payment of commission, sick and vacation leaves and 13th month pay.  The matter was referred to a labor arbiter
who, after requiring the parties to submit their position papers, rendered a
decision dated March 18, 1986 awarding the petitioner the amount of P35,273.92
for unpaid commissions/overprice.  The
other claims relating to 13th month pay, vacation and sick leaves and service
incentive leave of petitioner were dismissed. 
Private respondent appealed to the National Labor Relations Commission
(NLRC), wherein in due course a decision dated June 30, 1987 was rendered reversing the appealed decision
and dismissing the complaint for lack of merit.

Hence, the herein petition wherein petitioner urges that he is
not precluded from filing a money claim against the private respondent despite
the resignation letter and quitclaim he executed.

The petition is impressed with merit.  The general rule is that once an employee
resigns and executes a quitclaim in favor of the employer, he is thereby estopped from filing
any further money claims
against the employer arising from his employment.  It is only when the voluntariness
of the execution of the quitclaim or release is put into issue or when it is
established that there is an unwritten agreement between the employer and
employee upon resignation entitling the employee to other remuneration or
benefits when such a money claim of the employee may be given due course.

In this case, it is not denied that after the resignation of the
petitioner he nevertheless received three checks from the private respondent
dated October 10, 1984, October 16, 1984 and October 26, 1984.^[1]
He was able to encash one (1) check in the amount of
P2,080.00 but the payment of the other two was stopped by private respondent.

Private respondent admitted that during the employment of
petitioner he was paid a salary of
P1,300.00 monthly and he was also entitled to a 3% commission but not to overprice.  However, it denied owing petitioner any
amount as in fact the petitioner executed a quitclaim and release.  Private respondent also points out that the
three checks payable to cash were commissions to be given to certain third
parties for the sale of its products.

The Court finds no merit in this pretension of private
respondent.  Since petitioner had
resigned as early as August 31, 1984,
there was no reason why said three (3) checks would fall into his hands after
he severed connections with private respondent if it were not intended as
payment to him.  Indeed, petitioner encashed one of the checks. 
The only logical conclusion is that there was a parallel agreement
between the parties upon the execution of the quitclaim and release that
private respondent shall pay petitioner the commissions due him for the sales
he made.

The Court, however, is not persuaded that aside from the
commission, the petitioner is entitled to an overprice.  An examination of the original complaint
filed by petitioner with the Ministry of Labor and Employment shows that he was
only seeking the payment of commissions.^[2]
There is no mention of an overprice.

However, when petitioner was referred to the labor arbiter he was
made to submit his position paper he claimed not only the commissions but for
the first time the alleged overprice. 
The private respondent traversed this claim by asserting that only a 3%
commission and not an overprice was allowed petitioner during his employment.

Suffice it to state that petitioner can not ask for relief not
alleged and prayed for in his complaint. 
Since he was only claiming his commission, he cannot claim other alleged
amounts due him.^[3]

In the appealed
decision of the labor arbiter petitioner was awarded the total amount of
P35,273.92, as follows:

“Complainant’s total unpaid commission/overprice is
P35,273.92, computed as follows:

In the above summary, P4,515.00
represents the 3% commission for Saniwares; P248.92
is the commission due from Warner Lambert; P4,000.00 represents the commission
from California Manufacturing which was paid by check no. CBC 840500 in the
amount of P3,600.00 after deducting 10% tax payment, the encashment of which
was stopped by private respondent; P2,700.00 representing the commission from Saniwares paid by check no. CBC 840502 dated November 16, 1984 but which was
returned unpaid as payment was stopped by private respondent, or a total amount
of P11,463.92.  Deducting therefrom the amount of P2,080.00 which was the amount of
the check encashed by petitioner, private respondent
should pay the balance of P9,383.92 to petitioner as unpaid commissions.

WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED.  The questioned decision of the respondent
National Labor Relations dated June
30, 1987 is is hereby SET ASIDE.  In lieu
thereof, another decision is hereby rendered ordering the private respondent to
pay petitioner his unpaid commissions in the amount of NINE THOUSAND THREE
HUNDRED EIGHTY-THREE PESOS AND NINETY-TWO CENTAVOS (P9,383.92).  No costs. 
This decision is immediately executory.

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, (Chairman), Cruz, Griño-Aquino, and Medialdea, JJ., concur.

^[1]
Annexes A, B, and C of the petition of the Solicitor General.

^[2]
Annex A to the Petition.

^[3]
Gotamco vs. Chan Seng
and Razon, 46 Phil. 542, at 550 (1924).