CASE DIGEST: Gaisano vs. Akol
G.R. No. 193840: June 15, 2011
ALEXANDER S. GAISANO, Petitioner, v. BENJAMIN C. AKOL, Respondent.
VELASCO, JR., J.:
FACTS:
On April 14, 2011, the parties jointly filed an Agreement to Terminate Action duly signed by them and their respective counsels.
It reads:
AGREEMENT TO TERMINATE ACTION
Petitioner and Respondent, assisted by their undersigned counsels, unto this Honorable Court, most respectfully state that:
1.The parties have agreed to amicably settle this case by agreeing to terminate the same, including the cases from which it originated, with herein parties waiving any and all of their claims arising out of or necessarily connected with this case and its originating cases, to wit
A. Civil Case No. 2006-010 for recovery of shares of stock and damages where respondent was the plaintiff and which case was dismissed by the Branch 17 of the Regional Trial Court of Cagayan de OroCity.
b.CA G.R. SP No. 02271-MIN, 21st Division of the Court of Appeals filed by respondent as the petitioner in a Petition for Review from the aforementioned dismissal of his case by the Regional Trial Court.The respondent was awarded by the Court of Appeals with the contested shares of stock.
2.The parties shall bear their own litigation expenses in this case and the originating cases.
3.This settlement is for the sole purpose of buying peace, reestablishing goodwill and limiting legal expenses and costs and/or avoid further protracted, tedious and expensive litigation and is in no way an admission of fault or liability on the part of the parties for any wrongful acts.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed of this Honorable Court that the foregoing agreement be approved and that a Judgment be rendered thereon expressly incorporating the foregoing terms.
CebuCityand Cagayan deOro City,Philippines, April 1, 2011.
(sgd) ALEXANDER S. GAISANO(sgd) BENJAMIN C. AKOL
PetitionerRespondent
Assisted by:Assisted by:
(sgd) ANNABEL G. PULVERA-PAGE(sgd) ARMANDO S. KHO
x x x xx x x x
RIVERA L PULVERA & ASSOCIATES KHO, ROA & PARTNERS
Counsel for Petitioner Counsel for Respondent
ISSUE: Whether the compromise agreement is valid
HELD: YES.
CIVIL LAW: Compromise Agreement
A compromise agreement is a contract whereby the parties make reciprocal concessions, avoid litigation, or put an end to one already commenced.Its validity depends on its fulfillment of the requisites and principles of contracts dictated by law; its terms and conditions being not contrary to law, morals, good customs, public policy and public order.
A scrutiny of the aforequoted agreement reveals it is a compromise agreement sanctioned under Article 2028 of the Civil Code. Its terms and conditions are not contrary to law, morals, good customs, public policy and public order. Hence, judgment can be validly rendered thereon.
ALEXANDER S. GAISANO, Petitioner, v. BENJAMIN C. AKOL, Respondent.
VELASCO, JR., J.:
FACTS:
On April 14, 2011, the parties jointly filed an Agreement to Terminate Action duly signed by them and their respective counsels.
It reads:
AGREEMENT TO TERMINATE ACTION
Petitioner and Respondent, assisted by their undersigned counsels, unto this Honorable Court, most respectfully state that:
1.The parties have agreed to amicably settle this case by agreeing to terminate the same, including the cases from which it originated, with herein parties waiving any and all of their claims arising out of or necessarily connected with this case and its originating cases, to wit
A. Civil Case No. 2006-010 for recovery of shares of stock and damages where respondent was the plaintiff and which case was dismissed by the Branch 17 of the Regional Trial Court of Cagayan de OroCity.
b.CA G.R. SP No. 02271-MIN, 21st Division of the Court of Appeals filed by respondent as the petitioner in a Petition for Review from the aforementioned dismissal of his case by the Regional Trial Court.The respondent was awarded by the Court of Appeals with the contested shares of stock.
2.The parties shall bear their own litigation expenses in this case and the originating cases.
3.This settlement is for the sole purpose of buying peace, reestablishing goodwill and limiting legal expenses and costs and/or avoid further protracted, tedious and expensive litigation and is in no way an admission of fault or liability on the part of the parties for any wrongful acts.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed of this Honorable Court that the foregoing agreement be approved and that a Judgment be rendered thereon expressly incorporating the foregoing terms.
CebuCityand Cagayan deOro City,Philippines, April 1, 2011.
(sgd) ALEXANDER S. GAISANO(sgd) BENJAMIN C. AKOL
PetitionerRespondent
Assisted by:Assisted by:
(sgd) ANNABEL G. PULVERA-PAGE(sgd) ARMANDO S. KHO
x x x xx x x x
RIVERA L PULVERA & ASSOCIATES KHO, ROA & PARTNERS
Counsel for Petitioner Counsel for Respondent
ISSUE: Whether the compromise agreement is valid
HELD: YES.
CIVIL LAW: Compromise Agreement
A compromise agreement is a contract whereby the parties make reciprocal concessions, avoid litigation, or put an end to one already commenced.Its validity depends on its fulfillment of the requisites and principles of contracts dictated by law; its terms and conditions being not contrary to law, morals, good customs, public policy and public order.
A scrutiny of the aforequoted agreement reveals it is a compromise agreement sanctioned under Article 2028 of the Civil Code. Its terms and conditions are not contrary to law, morals, good customs, public policy and public order. Hence, judgment can be validly rendered thereon.
