This case has been cited 10 times or more.
|
2011-05-30 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| Under Article 2028 of the Civil Code, "[a] compromise is a contract whereby the parties, by making reciprocal concessions, avoid a litigation or put an end to one already commenced." Like any other contract, an extrajudicial compromise agreement is not excepted from rules and principles of a contract. It is a consensual contract, perfected by mere consent, the latter being manifested by the meeting of the offer and the acceptance upon the thing and the cause which are to constitute the contract.[76] Judicial approval is not required for its perfection.[77] A compromise has upon the parties the effect and authority of res judicata[78] and this holds true even if the agreement has not been judicially approved.[79] In addition, as a binding contract, a compromise agreement determines the rights and obligations of only the parties to it.[80] | |||||
|
2010-05-05 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| We have consistently held that a compromise agreement, once approved by final order of the court, has the force of res judicata between the parties and should not be disturbed except for vices of consent or forgery. In Armed Forces of the Philippines Mutual Benefit Association v. Court of Appeals,[42] we also held: Once stamped with judicial imprimatur, it (compromise agreement) becomes more than a mere contract binding upon the parties; having the sanction of the court and entered as its determination of the controversy, it has the force and effect of any other judgment. It has the effect and authority of res judicata, although no execution may issue until it would have received the corresponding approval of the court where the litigation pends and its compliance with the terms of the agreement is thereupon decreed. A judicial compromise is likewise circumscribed by the rules of procedure. | |||||
|
2007-07-04 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| A compromise agreement has been described as a contract whereby the parties, by making reciprocal concessions, avoid a litigation or put an end to one already commenced.[44] A compromise agreement that is intended to resolve a matter already under litigation is normally called a judicial compromise. Once it is stamped with judicial imprimatur, it becomes more than a mere contract binding upon the parties. Having the sanction of the court and entered as its determination of the controversy, it has the force and effect of any other judgment.[45] Such agreement has the force of law and is conclusive between the parties. It transcends its identity as a mere contract binding only upon the parties thereto, for it becomes a judgment that is subject to execution in accordance with the Rules.[46] Thus, a compromise agreement that has been made and duly approved by the court attains the effect and authority of res judicata, although no execution may be issued unless the agreement receives the approval of the court where the litigation is pending and compliance with the terms of the agreement is decreed.[47] | |||||
|
2006-07-28 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| A compromise agreement is a contract whereby the parties make reciprocal concessions in order to resolve their differences and thus avoid litigation or to put an end to one already commenced.[12] Once stamped with judicial imprimatur, it becomes more than a mere contract binding upon the parties; having the sanction of the court and entered as its determination of the controversy, it has the force and effect of any other judgment. It has the effect and authority of res judicata, although no execution may issue until it would have received the corresponding approval of the court where the litigation pends and its compliance with the terms of the agreement is thereupon decreed.[13] | |||||
|
2005-02-28 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Formal defects in petitions are not uncommon. The Court has encountered previous petitions for review that erroneously impleaded the Court of Appeals. In those cases, the Court merely called the petitioners' attention to the defects and proceeded to resolve the case on their merits.[31] The Court finds no reason why it should not afford the same liberal treatment in this case. While the Court has unquestionably the discretion to dismiss the appeal for being defective, sound policy dictates that it is far better to dispose of cases on the merits, rather than on technicality as the latter approach may result in injustice.[32] This is in accordance with Rule 1, Section 6[33] which encourages a reading of the procedural requirements in a manner that will help secure and not defeat justice.[34] | |||||
|
2004-05-07 |
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J. |
||||
| We have consistently held that a compromise agreement, once approved by final order of the court, has the force of res judicata between the parties and should not be disturbed except for vices of consent or forgery.[9] In Armed Forces of the Philippines Mutual Benefit Association vs. Court of Appeals,[10] we also held:"Once stamped with judicial imprimatur, it (compromise agreement) becomes more than a mere contract binding upon the parties; having the sanction of the court and entered as its determination of the controversy, it has the force and effect of any other judgment. It has the effect and authority of res judicata, although no execution may issue until it would have received the corresponding approval of the court where the litigation pends and its compliance with the terms of the agreement is thereupon decreed. A judicial compromise is likewise circumscribed by the rules of procedure." | |||||
|
2004-02-13 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| A compromise agreement is a contract whereby the parties make reciprocal concessions to resolve their differences,[9] thus avoiding litigation[10] or putting an end to one that has already commenced.[11] Generally favored in law,[12] such agreement is a bilateral act or transaction that is binding on the contracting parties and is expressly acknowledged by the Civil Code as a juridical agreement between them.[13] Provided it is not contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order or public policy,[14] it is immediately executory.[15] | |||||
|
2000-12-08 |
BUENA, J. |
||||
| While only petitioner Estacio is a government employee in these cases, as the three others are private individuals, it is in the light of this pronouncement that the instant petitions shall be considered and resolved. Moreover, in the recent case of Armed Forces of the Philippines Mutual Benefit Association, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals,[48] the Court, citing Supreme Court Circular No. 2-90 dated March 9, 1990, held that a petition for review on certiorari questioning the final judgment, order, or resolution of the Court of Appeals, the Sandiganbayan, the Regional Trial Courts or other courts, may raise factual issues. In the exercise of its sound discretion, taking into account the attendant circumstances, this Court retains the option of either taking cognizance of, and deciding such issues, or referring the case to the proper court for determination. In these criminal cases, this Court chooses to take cognizance of factual questions raised in the interest of proper administration of justice. | |||||
|
2000-11-27 |
DE LEON, JR., J. |
||||
| The general aim of procedural law is to facilitate the application of justice to the rival claims of contending parties, bearing always in mind that procedural rules are created not to hinder or delay but to facilitate and promote the administration of justice.[30] Courts in the exercise of their functions, and in rendering decisions, must not be too dogmatic as to restrict itself to literal interpretations of words, phrases and sentences; a complete and holistic view must be taken in order to render a just and equitable judgment.[31] It is far better to dispose of the case on the merits which is a primordial end rather than on a technicality, if it be the case, that may result in injustice.[32] Considering that the instant case involves a sizable sum of money, the overriding consideration of a judgment based on the merits should prevail over the primordial interests of strict enforcement on matters of technicalities. | |||||