CAROLINO VS SENGA – The retirement of Jeremias Carolino is under RA 340 since he retired on the year

1976; the amendment of such statute under PD no. 1638 is not applicable to his retirement benefits
since the said amendment was signed by then President Marcos in 1979. Art. 4 of Civil Code provides
that all laws shall have no retroactive effect; unless the contrary is provided. This principle also applies
to amendments of statutes.

FAMANILA VS CA – On Feb 28, 1991, Roberto Famanila received the amicable settlement of USD
13,200.00 from Hansa Riga and other respondents (Barber Ship Management, NFD International
Manning Agents, Inc.) and signed Waiver and Quitclaim from all the demands, claims, and other liens
arising from the sickness he endured whilst on board Hansa Riga. They filed a complaint with the NLRC
on June 11, 1997 praying for an award of disability benefits, share in the insurance proceeds, moral
damages and attorney’s fees.

Petitioner claims that he did not sign the Receipt and Release voluntarily of freely because he was
permanently disabled and in financial constraints. These factors allegedly vitiated his consent which
makes the Receipt and Release void and unforceable.

The petition lack merit.

In the case at bar, there is nothing in the records that show that petitioner’s consent was vitiated when
he signed the agreement. Granting that petitioner has not fully recovered his health at the time he
signed the subject document, the same cannot still lead to the conclusion that he did not voluntarily
accept the agreement, for his wife and another relative witnessed his signing.