Title
Mercader vs. Manila Polo Club
Case
G.R. No. L-8373
Decision Date
Sep 28, 1956
Employee Mercader settled claims with Manila Polo Club for P7,000, waiving all rights; later sued for damages, but court upheld settlement, dismissing claims and reversing attorney’s fees.

Case Summary (A.M. No. CA-13-51-J)

Employment and Salary Increases

Mercader's employment commenced on May 11, 1946, at a monthly salary of ₱375. This amount was later increased to ₱400 on August 19, 1949, which included ₱375 as regular pay and an additional ₱25 for work performed on Sundays, legal holidays, overtime, and special duties. Moreover, he was entitled to two weeks of paid vacation leave each year and 12 days of paid sick leave for proven illness.

Separation from Employment

On March 26, 1951, Mercader sought leave from April 1 to August 1, 1951, which was granted. However, during this leave, he received a letter dated April 17, 1951, from the Club manager, which imposed a limit of two weeks' sick leave for 1951 and included a severance pay of one month’s salary. Discontented with his separation, Mercader subsequently filed a claim with the Department of Labor for ₱10,000 regarding overtime and other privileges on June 16, 1951.

Labor Secretary’s Ruling and Settlement

The Department of Labor, after due proceedings, ordered the Manila Polo Club to pay Mercader ₱10,623.24 on September 24, 1951. However, an amicable settlement occurred on November 9, 1951, wherein Mercader received ₱7,000 in full settlement for any claims against the Club, which included claims for overtime work, vacation, and sick leave.

Subsequent Legal Action

Despite the settlement, Mercader filed a complaint with the Court of First Instance in Manila on January 9, 1953. He claimed that his employment had been wrongfully terminated, seeking compensatory damages, moral damages, and attorney’s fees. The Manila Polo Club acknowledged his employment but contended his separation was justified due to his poor work performance. The Club asserted that the matter was settled with the ₱7,000 payment.

Court’s Decision

The trial court dismissed Mercader's complaint, finding that the evidence favored the defendants and that Mercader had waived his claims through the prior settlement agreement. The court determined that regardless of the employment's nature, Mercader had no grounds for action against the Club due to the waiver. The court also found that Alex D. Stewart, acting as an agent for the Club, could not be held liable for Mercader’s separation.

Appellate Review

On appeal, Mercader assigned errors to the tr

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.