Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

MANILA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY v. ALA INDUSTRIES CORPORATION

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 191336 2012-01-25	CRISANTA ALCARAZ MIGUEL v. JERRY D. MONTANEZ REYES, J.
Being a by-product of mutual concessions and good faith of the parties, an amicable settlement has the force and effect of res judicata even if not judicially approved.[17] It transcends being a mere contract binding only upon the parties thereto, and is akin to a judgment that is subject to execution in accordance with the Rules.[18] Thus, under Section 417 of the Local Government Code,[19] such amicable settlement or arbitration award may be enforced by execution by the Barangay Lupon within six (6) months from the date of settlement, or by filing an action to enforce such settlement in the appropriate city or municipal court, if beyond the six-month period.
	GR NO. 171698 2007-07-04	MARIA SHEILA ALMIRA T. VIESCA v. DAVID GILINSKY 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]
	GR NO. 170395 2006-07-28	SPS. JESUS AND LOLITA MARTIR v. SPS. RAYMUNDO AND PURA VERANO YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
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. Hence, a decision on a compromise agreement is final and executory; it 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, as it becomes a judgment that is subject to execution in accordance with the Rules.[17] Thus, in Dela Rama v. Mendiola,[18] this Court held:Even more than a contract which may be enforced by ordinary action for specific performance, the compromise agreement is part and parcel of the judgment, and may therefore be enforced as such by a writ of execution.
	GR NO. 144732 2006-02-13	ROLANDO LIMPO v. CA 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.
	GR NO. 124267 2005-01-17	NATIONAL COMMERCIAL BANK OF SAUDI ARABIA v. CA CARPIO-MORALES, J.
Under Article 1306 of the Civil Code, contracting parties may establish such stipulations, clauses, terms and conditions as they may deem convenient, provided they are not contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order, or public policy. Thus, a compromise agreement whereby the parties make reciprocal concessions to resolve their differences to thereby put an end to litigation is binding on the contracting parties and is expressly acknowledged as a juridical agreement between them.[6] To have the force of res judicata, however, the compromise agreement must be approved by final order of the court.[7]
	GR NO. 153904 2005-01-17	PNOC-EDC v. FREDERICK V. ABELLA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Prevailing case law provides that "a compromise once approved by final orders of the court has the force of res judicata between the parties and should not be disturbed except for vices of consent or forgery. Hence, 'a decision on a compromise agreement is final and executory.' Such agreement has the force of law and is conclusive on the parties. It transcends its identity as a mere contract binding only upon the parties thereto, as it becomes a judgment that is subject to execution in accordance with the Rules. Judges therefore have the ministerial and mandatory duty to implement and enforce it."[38] (Underlining supplied.) Hence, compromise agreements duly approved by the courts are considered the decisions in the particular cases they involve.[39]