FAMANILA V.

CA YNARES-SANTIAGO

FACTS: Famanila was working as a Messman in an international crew ship. While in California, he was
operated on because he suffered from aneurysm. Due to his condition, he was repatriated to the
Philippine. He was then offered by his previous employer $13,200 and was asked to sign a “Release
and Waiver”. He signed it in the presence of the wife and another relative. 

Subsequently, he had a change of mind. He filed before the court an action seeking nullity of that
document claiming that it is void and unenforceable because at the time that he signed it, his consent
thereto was vitiated, he was in financial constraints and was suffering from physical disability since
the doctor told him that he could no longer go back to work.  

ISSUE: WoN the waiver was valid. YES.

HELD: Contrary to Famanilla’s claim, a vitiated consent does not make a contract void and
unenforceable. A vitiated consent only gives rise to a voidable agreement. Under the Civil Code, the
vices of consent are mistake, violence, intimidation, undue influence or fraud. If consent is given
through any of the aforementioned vices of consent, the contract is voidable.  A voidable contract is
binding unless annulled by a proper action in court.  

However, disability and financial constraint are not among the factors that may vitiate consent. In
addition, there is no proof on record that his consent was vitiated on account of his disability. In the
absence of such proof, the validity of the Receipt and Release must be upheld. 

To be valid and effective, waivers must be couched in clear and unequivocal terms, leaving no doubt
as to the intention of those giving up a right or a benefit that legally pertains to them. Upon review of
the terms and conditions contained in the Receipt and Release, the Court finds the same to be clear
and unambiguous. The signing was even witnessed by his wife and another relative. Therefore, the
waiver was valid.