This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2014-02-12 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| There is truth to Atty. Agustin's argument that the compromise agreement did not include or affect his attorney's fees granted in the final and executory LA Decision dated September 27, 1998. Attorney's fees become vested right when the order awarding those fees becomes final and executory and any compromise agreement removing that right must include the lawyer's participation if it is to be valid against him.[36] | |||||
|
2013-09-09 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| A client has an undoubted right to settle her litigation without the intervention of the attorney, for the former is generally conceded to have exclusive control over the subject matter of the litigation and may at any time, if acting in good faith, settle and adjust the cause of action out of court before judgment, even without the attorney's intervention.[35] It is important for the client to show, however, that the compromise agreement does not adversely affect third persons who are not parties to the agreement.[36] | |||||
|
2013-06-13 |
SERENO, C.J. |
||||
| The most telling indicia of this relationship is the Compromise Agreement executed by petitioner and private respondent. It is a valid agreement as long as the consideration is reasonable and the employee signed the waiver voluntarily, with a full understanding of what he or she was entering into.[64] All that is required for the compromise to be deemed voluntarily entered into is personal and specific individual consent.[65] Once executed by the workers or employees and their employers to settle their differences, and done in good faith, a Compromise Agreement is deemed valid and binding among the parties.[66] | |||||
|
2010-02-26 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| A compromise is a contract whereby the parties, by making reciprocal concessions, avoid litigation or put an end to one already commenced.[28] It is a consensual contract, binding upon the signatories/privies, and it has the effect of res judicata.[29] This cannot however affect third persons who are not parties to the agreement.[30] | |||||
|
2006-02-13 |
AZCUNA, J. |
||||
| What happens then if the court approves a compromise agreement that fails to include all of the defendants? In approving a compromise agreement, no court can impose upon the parties a judgment different from their real agreement or against the very terms and conditions of the amicable settlement entered into.[4] The principle of autonomy of contracts must be respected.[5] These being said, considering that the Compromise Agreement imposed no obligation upon Limpo, it follows that the judgment rendered by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasig, based on the Compromise Agreement, could likewise not impose any obligation upon him. The duty of the court is confined to the interpretation of the agreement that the contracting parties have made for themselves without regard to its wisdom or folly as the court cannot supply material stipulations or read into the contract words which it does not contain.[6] Consequently, the contention of Limpo is correct. The terms and conditions set forth in the Compromise Agreement, as approved by the court, are controlling[7] and, therefore, there is no basis to include him in reviving the judgment. | |||||