This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2006-07-28 |
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. | |||||
|
2005-05-26 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| A cause of action, broadly defined, is an act or omission of one party in violation of the legal right of the other. Its elements are the following: (1) the legal right of plaintiff; (2) the correlative obligation of the defendant, and (3) the act or omission of the defendant in violation of said legal right. Causes of action are identical when there is an identity in the facts essential to the maintenance of the two actions, or where the same evidence will sustain both actions. If the same facts or evidence can sustain either, the two actions are considered the same, so that the judgment in one is a bar to the other.[25] | |||||
|
2003-07-22 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| Finally, when the terms of an amicable settlement are violated, as in the case at bar, the remedy of the aggrieved party is to move for its execution. [20] Therefore, respondent availed of the proper remedy when she filed with the court that rendered the compromise judgment a motion for the execution of the same. Conversely, petitioner has no choice but to abide by the consequences of his failure to perform his obligation under the agreement. | |||||