Republic
of the
SUPREME
COURT
FIRST DIVISION
|
ALEXANDER
S. GAISANO, Petitioner, -
versus - BENJAMIN
C. AKOL, Respondent. |
|
G.R. No. 193840 Present: VELASCO, JR., J., Acting Chairperson,* LEONARDO-DE
CASTRO, BERSAMIN,** PEREZ,
JJ. Promulgated: June
15, 2011 |
x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
R E S O L U
T I O N
VELASCO, JR., J.:
In this Petition
for Review on Certiorari, petitioner assails the November 24, 2009 Decision[1]
and August 23, 2010 Resolution[2] of
the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 02271-MIN, which reversed and set aside
the June 24, 2008 Judgment[3] of
the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 17 in Cagayan de Oro City dismissing
respondents complaint for recovery of shares of stock in Civil Case No. 2006-010.
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
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.
(sgd)
ALEXANDER S. GAISANO (sgd) BENJAMIN C. AKOL
Petitioner Respondent
Assisted by: Assisted
by:
(sgd)
ANNABEL G. PULVERA-PAGE (sgd) ARMANDO S. KHO
x x x x x x x x
RIVERAL
PULVERA & ASSOCIATES KHO, ROA & PARTNERS
Counsel for Petitioner Counsel for
Respondent
A compromise agreement is a contract whereby the parties make reciprocal
concessions, avoid litigation, or put an end to one already commenced.[4]
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.[5]
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.
WHEREFORE, finding the Agreement to Terminate
Action dated April 1, 2011 not to be contrary to law, morals, good customs,
public policy and public order, it is hereby APPROVED and judgment is rendered based on said agreement which is
final and immediately executory. The parties are enjoined to comply strictly
and in good faith with the terms, conditions and stipulations contained
therein. Accordingly, the complaint for recovery of shares of stock and
damages, docketed as Civil Case No. 2006-010, before the RTC, Branch 17 in Cagayan
de Oro City is hereby DISMISSED with
PREJUDICE.
The March
28, 2011 Motion for Reconsideration with Motion to Admit Petition for Review on
Certiorari (Re: 12 January 2011 Resolution) of pertitioner has become moot and
academic.
SO ORDERED.
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.
Associate
Justice
WE CONCUR:
TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO
Associate Justice
LUCAS P. BERSAMIN MARIANO C.
Associate Justice Associate Justice
JOSE
Associate Justice
C E R
T I F I C A T I O N
Pursuant to Section
13, Article VIII of the Constitution, I certify that the conclusions in the
above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to
the writer of the opinion of the Courts Division.
RENATO C. CORONA
Chief Justice
* Per Special Order No. 1003 dated June 8, 2011.
** Additional member per Special Order No. 1000 dated June 8, 2011.
[1] Rollo, pp. 43-59. Penned by Associate Justice Elihu A. Ybaez and concurred in by Associate Justices Romulo V. Borja and Danton Q. Bueser.
[2]
[3]
[4] Uy v. Chua, G.R. No. 183965, September
18, 2009, 600 SCRA 806, 817; California
Manufacturing Company, Inc. v. The City of
[5] Calingin v. Civil Service Commission, G.R. No. 183322, October 30, 2009, 604 SCRA 818, 824.