Short answer. Yes, but not without limits. Article 6 of the Civil Code says rights may be waived, unless the waiver is contrary to law, public order, public policy, morals, or good customs, or prejudicial to a third person with a right recognized by law. Beyond those boundaries, a waiver will not hold.
What the law says
Rights may be waived, unless the waiver is contrary to law, public order, public policy, morals, or good customs, or prejudicial to a third person with a right recognized by law.
Civil Code, Article 6 — Waiver of Rights. Read the full provision →
Waiver is allowed as a general rule
The law begins by respecting your freedom to give up what is yours. Article 6 states that rights may be waived, and then sets the boundaries. A right is generally seen as established for the benefit of the person who holds it, and the holder may usually choose not to exercise or enforce it. That is why settlements, releases, quitclaims and consents work: you are surrendering a right you were free to keep. So the starting point favours the validity of a waiver. The real question in most disputes is not whether you may waive, but whether the particular waiver ran into one of the article's limits.
The limits the article draws
The freedom stops where the waiver is contrary to law, public order, public policy, morals, or good customs, or prejudicial to a third person with a right recognized by law. Two ideas run through these limits. First, some rights are not purely private; they are tied to interests the law protects for everyone, so you cannot bargain them away, and a waiver that offends law, public order, policy or good morals is void. Second, your waiver may bind you but it cannot reach into the rights of others, so it fails where it would prejudice a third person whose right the law recognises. You can give up your own; you cannot give up someone else's.
A waiver must also be clear and informed
Even a permissible waiver only counts if it is genuinely made. As a general matter a waiver must be clear, and it presupposes that the person knows the right and intends to relinquish it. Courts are cautious about treating a right as surrendered by silence, ambiguity, or a signature obtained without real understanding, particularly where there is a great imbalance between the parties. So a vague or doubtful release may be read narrowly, and a supposed waiver of a right the person did not know they had, or did not truly mean to give up, may not stand. Consent to lose a right is not lightly presumed.
Why it matters before you sign
Because waivers are common, in employment quitclaims, settlement releases, consent forms, and contract clauses, it is worth knowing that signing one is not always the last word. A waiver of a right the law protects for the public, or one that harms a third person's recognised right, can be attacked despite your signature. Equally, a waiver that is clear, voluntary and within the article's limits will bind you. If you are being asked to give up something significant, understanding exactly which right is at stake, and whether it is one the law lets you surrender, is the difference between an effective release and an empty one.
Cases citing this provision
These Supreme Court decisions cite the provision above. We list them so you can read them yourself; the summaries of what each decided are not ours to give.
- Domingo Naldo, Jr.,et al. vs. Corporate Protection Services, Phils., Inc, G.R. No. 243139, April 3, 2024 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Lunining S. Brazil, Salvacion L. Garcera and Rita S. De Mesa vs. STI Education Ser. Group Inc. and Monico V. Jacob, G.R. No. 233314, November 21, 2018 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Raymond A. Son, Raymond S. Antiola, and Wilfredo E. Pollarco, vs. University of Santo Tomas, et al, G.R. No. 211273, April 18, 2018 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- F.F. Cruz & Co., Inc. vs. HR Construction Corp, G.R. No. 187521, March 14, 2012 — read the decision on LawPhil →