295 SCRA 470 (1998) G.R. No. 129742,
September 16, 1998
TERESI TA FAIAN TERESITA FAIAN !". #ESIERT$ FACTS: Petiti Pet itione onerr Teresi resita ta Fab Fabian ian was the maj major or sto stockh ckhold older er and Pres Preside ident nt of PROMAT PROMA T Construction Construction Deelo!ment Cor!oration which was en"a"ed in the construction business# Priate res!ondent $estor A"ustin was the District %n"i %n "ine neer er of th thee Fi Firs rstt Me Metr tro o Ma Mani nila la %n %n"i "ine neeri erin" n" Di Dist stri rict ct## PR PROM OMA AT !artici!ated in the biddin" for "oernment construction !rojects& and !riate res!ondent& re!ortedl' takin" adanta"e of his official !osition& inei"led !etitioner into an amorous relationshi!# Their affair lasted for some time& in the course of which& !riate res!ondent "ifted PROMAT with !ublic works contracts and interceded for it in !roblems concernin" the same in his office# o ffice# (hen (he n !et !etiti itione onerr tri tried ed to ter termin minate ate the their ir rel relati ations onshi! hi!&& !ri !riat atee res res!on !onden dentt refused and resisted her attem!ts to do so to the e)tent of em!lo'in" acts of harassm har assment ent&& int intimi imidat dation ion and th threa reats# ts# Pet Petiti itione onerr fil filed ed an adm admini inistr strati atie e com!laint a"ainst !riate res!ondent# Ombudsman found !riate res!ondent "uilt' of misconduct and meted out the !enalt' of sus!ension without !a' for * 'ear# After !riate res!ondent moed mo ed for rec recons onside iderat ration ion&& the Omb Ombuds udsman man dis disco coere ered d tha thatt the !ri !riat atee res!ondent+s new counsel had been his classmate and close associate& hence& he in inhi hibi bite ted d hi hims msel elf# f# Th Thee ca case se wa wass tr tran ansfe sferre rred d to re res! s!on onde dent nt De De!u !ut' t' Ombudsman Ombud sman who e)on e)onerate erated d !ria !riate te res!on res!ondent dent from the admi administra nistratie tie char"es# Petitioner a!!ealed to the SC b' certiorari under Rule ,- of the Rules of Court#
.SS/%: (het (h ethe herr or no nott Se Sect ctio ion n 01 of RA 2113 2113 wh whic ich h !r !ro oid ides es fo forr a! a!!e !eal alss in administrat admin istratie ie disci!linar' disci!linar' cases from the Offi Office ce of the Ombudsman to the SC in accordance with Rule ,- of the Rules of Court is alid
D%C.S.O$: The reised Rules of Ciil Procedure !reclude a!!eals from 4uasi5judicial a"encies to the SC ia a !etition for reiew on certiorari under Rule ,-# /nder the !resent Rule ,-& a!!eals ma' be brou"ht throu"h a !etition for reiew on certiorari but onl' from jud"ments and final orders of the courts enumerated in Sec# * thereof# A!!eals from jud"ments and final orders of 4uas 4u asi5 i5ju judi dici cial al a" a"en encie ciess ar aree no now w re re4u 4uir ired ed to be br brou ou"h "htt to th thee CA on a erified !etition for reiew& under the re4uirements and conditions in Rule ,6 which was !recisel' formulated and ado!ted to !roide for a uniform rule of a!!ellate !rocedure for 4uasi5judicial a"encies# Section 01 of RA 2113 cannot alidl' authori7e an a!!eal to the SC from decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman in administratie disci!linar' cases# .t conse4uentl' iolates the !roscri!tion in Sec# 63& Art# 8. of the Constitution a"ainst a law which increases the a!!ellate jurisdiction of the SC#
%21 SCRA 659 (1999) GR 1%%876 #e&ember 29, 1999
AN' $F AERICA !" AERICAN REAT* C$R+$RATI$N FACTS: Petitioner "ranted loans to 6 forei"n cor!orations# As securit'& the latter mort"a"ed a !ro!ert' located in the Phili!!ines owned b' herein res!ondent ARC# ARC is a third !art' mort"a"or who !led"ed its own !ro!ert' in faor of the the 6 debt debtor or5f 5fore orei" i"n n cor! cor!or orat atio ions ns## The The debt debtors ors fail failed ed to !a' !a'# Thus Thus&& !etitioner filed collection suits in forei"n courts to enforce the loan# Subse4uentl'& Subse4uentl'& it filed a !etition in the Sheriff to e)tra5judiciall' foreclose the
said mort"a"e& which was "ranted# On *0 Februar' *996& !riate res!ondent filed before the Pasi" RTC& ranch *-9& an action for dama"es a"ainst the !etitioner& for the latter+s act of foreclosin" e)tra5judiciall' the real estate mort"a"es des!ite the !endenc' of ciil suits before forei"n courts for the collection of the !rinci!al loan# .SS/%: (O$ !etitioner+s act of filin" a collection suit a"ainst the !rinci!al debtors for the recoer' of the loan before forei"n courts constituted a waier of the remed' of foreclosure# D%C.S.O$: ;es# *#
.ncidentall'& !etitioner alle"es that under %n"lish
190 SCRA 190
(1990)
+A'ISTAN INTERNATI$NA AIRINES C$R+$RATI$N !" $N. AS $+E FACTS: *# Pakistan .nternational Airline >P.A? is a forei"n cor!oration licensed to do business in the P@# 0 se!arate contracts of em!lo'ment with Farrales and Mamasi" were entered into b' P.A in Manila# The contracts became effectie in *919# The contracts contained !roisions a# Proidin" for the term of 6 'ears e)tendible u!on mutual consent of the !arties b# That P.A reseres the ri"ht to terminate the em!lo'ee either b' "iin" notice * month before the date of termination or one month+s salar'
&. -T/" reemet "33 be &o"tre o!ere er b te 3" o +/"t, o3 te Cort" o 'r&/, +/"t "33 !e te :r/"/&t/o to &o"/er mtter r/"/ ot o or er t/" reemet.; 0# After their trainin" !eriod& Farrales and Mamasi" commenced their serices as fli"ht attendants with base station in Manila# 6# * 'ear and , months before the la!se of the 65'ear !eriod& counsel for the local branch of P.A sent Farrales and Mamasi" notices e)!ressin" that their serices will be terminated a month thereafter# ,# Farrales and Mamasi" filed a joint com!laint for ille"al termination and non5!a'ment of com!an' benefits before the then Ministr' of MO<%? -# P.A submitted a !osition !a!er claimin" that Farrales and Mamasi" were habitual absentees= that both were in the habit of brin"in" in from abroad si7eable 4uantities of B!ersonal effectsB= and that P.A !ersonnel at the Manila .nternational Air!ort had been discreetl' warned b' customs officials to adise !riate res!ondents to discontinue that !ractice# 2# Re"ional Director ordered reinstatement and !a'ment of full back wa"es or in the alternatie !a'ment of their salaries for the remainder of the 65'ear !eriod#
a# The' hae attained status of re"ular em!lo'ees b# The !roision sti!ulatin" a three5'ear !eriod of em!lo'ment is null and oid for iolatin"
res!ondents een durin" the limited !eriod of three >6? 'ears& and thus to esca!e com!letel' the thrust of Articles 03 and 0* of the and actuall' doin" business? and hence resident in the Phili!!ines= iii# !riate res!ondents were based in the Phili!!ines in between their assi"ned fli"hts to the Middle %ast and %uro!e# All the aboe contacts !oint to the Phili!!ine courts and administratie a"encies as a !ro!er forum for the resolution of contractual dis!utes between the !arties# /nder these circumstances& !ara"ra!h *3 of the em!lo'ment a"reement cannot be "ien effect so as to oust Phili!!ine a"encies and courts of the jurisdiction ested u!on them b' Phili!!ine law# c# Finall'& and in an' eent& the !etitioner P.A did not undertake to !lead and !roe the contents of Pakistan law on the matter= it must therefore be !resumed that the a!!licable !roisions of the law of Pakistan are the same as the a!!licable !roisions of Phili!!ine law
G.R. No. =19671
No!ember 29, 1965
+AST$R TENCA>E? >" >ICENTA ESCA@$ FACTS: 8icenta %scaGo& 01& e)chan"ed marria"e ows with Pastor Tenchae7& 60& on Febrr 24, 1948, before a Catholic cha!lain# The marria"e was dul' re"istered with the local ciil re"istrar# @oweer& the two were unable to lie to"ether after the marria"e and as of e 1948& the' were alread' estran"ed# 8icenta left for the /nited Stated in *9-3# On the same 'ear she filed a erified com!laint for diorce a"ainst Tenchae7 in the State of $eada on the "round of H%)treme cruelt'& entirel' mental in character#I A decree of diorce& Hfinal and absoluteI was issued in o!en court b' the said tribunal# She married an American& lied with him in California& had seeral children with him and& on *9-& ac4uired American Citi7enshi!# On 63 Jul' *9--& Tenchae7 filed a com!laint in the Court of First .nstance of Cebu& and amended on 6* Ma' *9-2& a"ainst 8icenta F# %scaGo& her !arents& Mamerto and Mena %scaGo whom he char"ed with hain" dissuaded and discoura"ed 8icenta from joinin" her husband& and alienatin" her affections& and a"ainst the Roman Catholic Church& for hain"& throu"h its Diocesan Tribunal& decreed the annulment of the marria"e& and asked for le"al se!aration and one million !esos in dama"es# 8icenta+s !arents denied that the' had in an' wa' influenced their dau"hter+s acts& and counterclaimed for moral dama"es# .SS/%: *# (hether or not the diorce sou"ht b' 8icenta %scaGo is alid and bindin" u!on courts of the Phili!!ines# 0# (hether or not the char"es a"ainst 8icenta %scaGo+s !arents were sufficient in form# D%C.S.O$: *# $o# 8icenta %scaGo and Pastor Tenchae7+ marria"e remain e)istent and undissoled under the Phili!!ine
was bound since in the time the diorce decree was issued& %scaGo& like her husband& was still a Fili!ino citi7en# The acts of the wife in not com!l'in" with her wifel' duties& desertin" her husband without an' justifiable cause& leain" for the /nited States in order to secure a decree of absolute diorce& and finall' "ettin" married a"ain are acts which constitute a willful infliction of injur' u!on the husband+s feelin"s in a manner contrar' to morals& "ood customs or !ublic !olic'& thus entitlin" Tenchae7 to a decree of le"al se!aration under our law on the basis of adulter'# 0# $o# Tenchae7+ char"e a"ainst 8icenta+s !arents are not su!!orted b' credible eidence# The testimon' of Tenchae7 about the %scaGo+s animosit' toward him strikes the court to be merel' conjecture and e)a""eration& and were belied b' Tenchae7+ own letters written before the suit had be"un# An action for alienation of affections a"ainst the !arents of one consort does not lie in the absence of !roof of malice or unworth' moties on their !art#Plaintiff Tenchae7& in falsel' char"in" 8icentaKs a"ed !arents with racial or social discrimination and with hain" e)erted efforts and !ressured her to seek annulment and diorce& un4uestionabl' caused them unrest and an)iet'& entitlin" them to recoer dama"es#
81 +I 506 G.R. No. =2%6%
September 2%, 1948
GREG$RI$ ARANETA INC. >S S$TER$ R$#AS FACTS: This is a motion for reconsideration of the resolution of this Court dismissin" the s!ecial ciil action of certiorari and mandamus filed b' the !etitioners a"ainst the res!ondents& which asked that order of the res!ondent jud"e den'in" the !etitionerKs motion to com!el the other res!ondents to answer certain interro"atories submitted b' the former to the latter be set aside& and that the res!ondent be ordered to issue an order com!ellin" the res!ondent cor!oration to answer said interro"atories# .SS/%:
(hether or not there is a rule of law which controls or "uides the res!ondent jud"e in decidin" whether an interro"ator' should be allowed or not# D%C.S.O$: Since the sco!e of de!ositions and written interro"atories is limited to matters which are not !riile"ed and releant to the subject matter inoled in a !endin" action& and the determination of whether or not an interro"ator' is !riile"ed or material is not left to the discretion of the court or jud"e& for there is a law a!!licable which seres as norm or "uide for the court or jud"e to follow& the res!ondent jud"e could not commit a "rae abuse of discretion which it did not hae in decidin" whether or not the interro"atories in 4uestion are immaterial to the subject matter inoled in the !endin" action& and therefore the' can not be allowed# .f the res!ondent jud"e has acted contrar' to law in decidin" that the written interro"atories !ro!ounded b' the !etitioners to the other res!ondents are immaterial& he would hae committed an error of law which this court can not correct in the !resent case= but not a "rae abuse of discretion# (hat the resolution means to sa'& and we now e)!ressl' so hold is that certiorari does not lie at all for the reasons aboe stated& and the !ro!er remed' is to rise the 4uestion of admissibilit' of such interro"atories on a!!eal from the final jud"ment of the res!ondent court or jud"e# .t is obious that the 4uestion whether certiorari or a!!eal is the !ro!er and ade4uate remed' ma' onl' come u! when the court has acted without or in e)cess of jurisdiction and the act com!lained of is a!!ealable# Princi!le: (hen the law does not !roide a rule or norm for the court to follow in decidin" a 4uestion submitted to it& but leaes it to the court to determine it in one wa' or another at his discretion& the jud"e is not absolutel' free to act at his !leasure or will or arbitraril'# @e must decide the 4uestion& not in accordance with law for there is none& but in conformit' with justice& reason and e4uit'& in iew of the circumstances of the case# Otherwise the court or jud"e would abuse his discretion#
G.R. N$. =41795
ABGBST 29, 1980
+II+INE AN' $F C$BNICATI$NS >S $N. BAN ECI>ERRI FACTS: On Ma' 09& *91,& the Phili!!ine ank of Communications >PCOM for short?& a bankin" cor!oration dul' or"ani7ed and e)istin" under the laws of the Phili!!ines that has been en"a"ed in normal commercial bankin" transactions since *969& filed a com!laint for the recoer'& jointly and severally from therein defendants& of oer P0- million alle"edl' embe77led from it oer a !eriod of *2 'ears b' its said em!lo'ees defendants& ;u Chiao Chin& alias $elson ;u& assistant mana"er& in5char"e of the Auditin" De!artment= Paulino @ow& mana"er of the usiness Deelo!ment De!artment= Faustino Carlos& .ldefonso Carino& Conrado Lale7& Arsenic
the motion for jud"ment on the basis of the com!romise a"reement and at the same time makin" the obseration motu !ro!rio that Bthere are certain objectionable features concernin" the com!romise a"reement& as submitted& such as matters !ertainin" to a !ro!osed com!romise inolin" the criminal as!ect of the case& K(hich is contrar' to law# Therefore& the !arties who hae alread' si"ned the said com!romise a"reement are hereb' instructed to "o oer the same and see how it could be !ro!erl' a!!roed b' the Court& takin" into consideration the !roisions of law as well as !ublic morals and !olic'#B On A!ril 02& *91-& tile !arties the PCOM& thru its !resident& and the defendants in their own behalf and each assisted b' counsel submitted a manifestation and motion in order to hae the !hrase Band criminal char"e hereinaboe mentionedB >contained in !ara"ra!h 1 of the Com!romise A"reement? and Band criminal char"eB >contained in !ara"ra!h *3 of the Com!romise A"reement?& supra& deleted and !ra'in" that jud"ment be rendered on the basis of the Com!romise A"reement as thus modified# On Ma' *0& *91-& the defendant Conrado Lale7 thru his counsel filed a Manifestation !ointin" out two alle"ed objectionable features in the com!romise a"reement si"ned b' him& which he claimed to be Bcontrar' to law& !ublic !olic' and decenc'&B namel'& the !roision thereof to the effect that said a"reement een after its a!!roal b' the court shall be without !rejudice to char"in" anew the same defendants on the basis of other anomalies which mi"ht be discoered in the bank thereafter& contrar' to his e)!ectation that the dismissal of the !resent criminal and ciil cases would terminate with finalit' an' and all liti"ations between the !arties= and the !roision re"ardin" 4uitclaim where said defendant would be considered as hain" oluntaril' resi"ned& waiin" his ri"ht to reinstatement in the serice& his ri"ht to retirement with the corres!ondin" "ratuit' or com!ensation and his ri"ht to receie the benefits under the Staff Proident Fund# ut said defendant made no claim that he did not oluntaril' si"n the com!romise or that (s consent had been obtained throu"h mistake& iolence or fraud# 4 .n fact& he based his objection on his claim that Bit was the !laintiff& from the outset& who !ersuaded Lale7 to turn state witness and !romised him reci!rocal benefits should he a"ree to become such& and to which Lale7 a"reed and had done his !art& but !laintiff had rene"ed on its !romise and commitment# Counterin" the manifestation of Conrado Lale7& PCOM thru counsel
maintained the le"alit' and alidit' ofK the 4uitclaim dul' si"ned b' said Lale7# As to the terms of the& A"reement& i7# that it Bshall not in an' manner bar or !reclude the ank from assertin" the ri"hts a"ainst the PART.%S OF T@% S%CO$D PART in the eent that the ank subse4uentl' discoers such other transactions on& dealin"s ill which an' or all the PART.%S OF T@% S%CO$D PART are directl' or indirectl' inoled and which are !rejudicial to the ankKs interest&B said counsel e)!lained that the a"reement was intended b' the bank to coer onl' such matters of transactions which were known or disclosed to it b' the defendants and not those of which it had no knowled"e at the time of e)ecution thereof# On Jul' 6& *91-& res!ondent jud"e issued an order settin" the case for hearin" Bat which all the !arties will be afforded the o!!ortunit' to indiiduall' show whether or not there is sufficient basis for the 4uitclaims in 4uestion iewed from the stand!oint of law& !ublic !olic' and morals is5 a5is em!lo'er5em!lo'ee relations# .SS/%: (O$ The com!romise a"reement entered is alid and bindin" amon" the !arties D%C.S.O$: the !resent !etition find to be meritorious# *# Contrar' to the bare conclusion of res!ondent jud"e orderin" the deletion of the names of herein res!ondents5defendants from the aboe54uoted Para"ra!h 1 of the com!romise a"reement& whereb' he would free them from their a"reement of oluntaril' resi"nin" from !etitioner bank and waiin" whateer ri"hts the' ma' hae a"ainst !etitioner arisin" from their em!lo'ment or the case& includin" all benefits and ri"hts under !etitionerKs Staff Proident Fund and retirement !lan in consideration of !etitionerKs a"reement to dismiss the P0- million case a"ainst them and dischar"in" them from all obli"ations and liabilities thereunder& there is nothin" in said resi"nation and waier undertakin"s of res!ondents that Btrans"resses the
lawB or is Bcontrar' to law& morals& "ood customs& !ublic !olic' and !ublic order and& therefore is considered ine)istent and oid from the be"innin"B and no such law or authorit' was cited b' res!ondent jud"e or res!ondents to justif' or su!!ort his erroneous assertion# Res!ondent jud"eKs Bfindin"B that herein res!ondents5bookkee!ers Ball occu!ied an inferior !osition in the ne"otiations on the Com!romise A"reement in 4uestion& with res!ect to the !laintiff5bank andor to"ether with !rinci!al defendants ;u Chiao Chin alias $elson ;u and Paulino <# @ow# e it remembered that these !rinci!al defendants as earl'5 as the 'ear *913& lon" before the Com!laint herein was filed& had admitted in writin" and Kassumed full res!onsibilit' for whateer conse4uences ma' arise and that we declare the bookkee!ers free from all res!onsibilit'&or een his !re5 jud"ed subjectie !erce!tion in his earlier Order of Jul' 6& *91- hereinaboe 4uoted that Bthere was obiousl' an imbalance in Ntheir treatmentB in the BunfairB and Bone5sided com!romise a"reementB do not at all warrant his rash deletion of the res!ondentsK reci!rocal undertakin" in e)chan"e of !etitionerKs dismissal of the case and waier of its claims as Bcontrar' to law& morals& "ood customs& !ublic !olic' and !ublic order#B This is so& !articularl' considerin" that res!ondent jud"e a!!roed the er' same com!romise a"reement in toto without an' deletion of the !roisions in 4uestion as to defendants @ow and ;u& who were char"ed in the com!laint below to"ether with herein res!ondents5defendants as hain" connived and acted in concert with each other to defraud !etitioner of some P0- million and res!ondent jud"e in his aboe54uoted Bfindin"sB found that Bthe admissions of the seeral defendants5bookkee!ers . herein res!ondents a!!ro)imated this findin" Nof P0- million defrauded loss found b' S'ci!& Lorres& 8ela'o Co#& the inde!endent auditors= i#e# P0* million alone b' $elson ;u#B All of them bein" similarl' situated and hain" been char"ed with conniance and cons!irac' #n carr'in" out throu"h the 'ears the hu"e defraudation of !etitioner& res!ondent jud"e could not arbitraril' declare the !roisions in 4uestion void as to the herein seen res!ondents5cons!irators and valid as t2 the two others aboe named# 0# Far from bein" Bone5sidedB and BunfairB& it thus a!!ears that in e)chan"e of herein res!ondentsK oluntar' resi"nation >which em!lo'ment the' could not hae clun" to an'wa' considerin" the hu"e defraudation of oer P0million carried out with their conniance and coered b' their admissions& as !er res!ondent jud"eKs own Bfindin"sB in his decision& supra&which certainly would warrant their dismissal een on the mere "round of total loss of trust
and confidence? and waier of an' dubious ri"hts arisin" from their em!lo'ment and the case below& includin" all benefits and ri"hts under !etitionerKs Staff Proident Fund and retirement !lan >which the' would neertheless hae lost and forfeited u!on se!aration from the serice all of which inoled !ett' amounts com!ared to the oer P0- million sou"ht to be recoered b' !etitioner& herein res!ondents "ot a !rett' "ood deal# Petitioner in consideration thereof and !robabl' reali7in" the futilit' of collectin" an' amount from them& a"reed to dismiss the case a"ainst them and dischar"e them from all liabilit' and re4uired no assum!tion of monetar' liabilit' from them contentin" itself with the much lesser amounts of P233&333#33 and P2&2*3&333#33 undertaken to be !aid it b' the defendants Paulino @ow and ;u Chiao Chin alias $elson ;u& res!ectiel'# This is the whole essence of a com!romise as !roided in Article 030 of the Ciil Code whereb' the !arties& b' makin" reci!rocal concessions& whether of "reater benefit or not to one or the other !art'& aoid a liti"ation or !ut an end to one alread' commenced# 6# The !arties therefore hae eer' freedom to enter into a com!romise a"reement& as in an' other contract& the onl' e)ce!tions bein" certain !rohibited subjects of com!romise such as the ciil status of !ersons as !roided in Article 036- of the Ciil Code >none of which is a!!licable here? and the "eneral restriction in Article *632 of the Ciil Code that KThe contractin" !arties ma' establish such sti!ulations& clauses& terms and conditions as the' ma' deem conenient& !roided the' are not contrar' to law& morals& "ood customs& !ublic order& or !ublic !olic'# The law and the !rece!ts of morals or "ood customs need no definition# The' need onl' to be cited and none has or can be cited as bein" trans"ressed b' the cited !roisions in 4uestion# As to the remainin" fields of !ublic order and !ublic !olic'& the Court has since the earl' case of Ferrazzini vs. Gsell 15 !ointed out that the two terms are !racticall' e4uialent& citin" Manresa that BPublic !olic' >order !ublico? which does not here si"nif' the material kee!in" of !ublic order re!resents in the law of !ersons the !ublic& social and le"al interest& that which is !ermanent and essential of the institutions& that which# een in faorin" an indiidual in whom the ri"ht lies& cannot be left to his own will#B The Code Commission howeer in draftin" our !resent Code included the two terms& statin" ill its re!ort that BPublic order& which is found in the S!anish Ciil Code& is not as broad as !ublic !olic'& as the latter ma' refer not onl' to !ublic safet' but also& to considerations which are moed b' the common "ood#
.n Gabriel vs. Monte de Piedad & the Court enjoined that Bcourts should not rashl' e)tend the rule which holds that a contract is oid as a"ainst !ublic !olic'B and laid down the followin" criteria: BThe term K!ublic !olic'K is a"ue and uncertain in meanin"& floatin" and chan"eable in connotation# .t ma' be said& howeer& that& in "eneral& a contract which is neither !rohibited b' law nor condemned b' judicial decision& nor contrar' to !ublic morals& contraenes no !ublic !olic'# .n the absence of e)!ress le"islation or constitutional !rohibition& a court& in order to declare a contract oid as a"ainst !ublic !olic'& must find that the contract as to the consideration or thin" to be done& has a tendenc' to injure the !ublic& is a"ainst the !ublic "ood& or contraenes some established interests of societ'& or is inconsistent with sound !olic' and "ood morals& or tends clearl' to undermine the securit' of indiidual ri"hts& whether of !ersonal liabilit' or of !riate !ro!ert'# %)aminin" the contract at bar& we are of the o!inion that it does not in an' wa' militate a"ainst the !ublic "ood# $either does it contraene the !olic' of the law nor the established interests of societ'# Thus& the !roisions in 4uestion which are neither !rohibited b' law nor condemned b' judicial decision nor contrar' to morals and "ood customs cannot be said to contraene an' !ublic !olic' or to militate a"ainst the !ublic "ood# ,# The Ciil Code in fact contains salutar' !roisions that encoura"e and faor com!romises and does not een re4uire judicial a!!roal# As the Court held in Cochingyan vs. Cloribel BPursuant to Article 0361 of the Ciil Code& KA com!romise has u!on the !arties the effect and authorit' of res judicata ###K and this is true een if the com!romise is not judiciall' a!!roed#B Article 0360 of the Ciil Code !roides onl' that Bthe courtKs a!!roal is necessar' in com!romises entered into b' "uardians& !arents& absenteeKs re!resentaties& and administrators or e)ecutors of decedentsK estates&B and in no other case# Thus& !arties5liti"ants who hae arried at a com!romise hae man' times sim!l' asked for and obtained the courtsK dismissal of their suit without submittin" their com!romise a"reement for judicial a!!roal# Procedurall'& it is !referable that such a!!roal be obtained& since as was held in Piano vs. Cayanong,BThe a"reement ha>s? u!on the !arties the effect and authorit' of res judicata >Art# 0361& $ew Ciil Code= ;boleon # Sison& -9 Phil# 0*& 093= @ernande7 s# arcelon& 06 Phil# -99& 231= De Jesus # Lo Quiola'& 2- Phil# ,12& ,0= Meneses # De la Rosa& 11 Phil# 6,& 6= Sala7ar # Jarabe& , O#L# 013& 01*0= Morales # Fontanos& 2, Phil# *9& 0*?& and the jud"ment rendered thereon ha>s? the
authorit' of res judicata from the moment it >is? rendered ### and such jud"ment is more than a mere contract bindin" the !arties because hain" the sanction of the court& and entered as its determination of the controers'& it has all the force and effect of an' other jud"ment& it bein" conclusie u!on the !arties and their !riies >Mar4ue7 s# Mar4ue7& 16 Phil# 1,?B and as !roided b' Article 0361& e)ecution lies to e)act com!liance onl' with a judicial com!romise# Article 0309 of the Ciil Code !roides further that BThe court shall endeaor to !ersuade the liti"ants in a ciil case to a"ree u!on some fair com!romise&B and Articles 0369 and 036* thereof !roide for the sus!ension of !endin" actions and miti"ation of dama"es to the losin" !art' who has shown a sincere desire for a Com!romise& in line with the CodeKs !olic' of encoura"in" amicable settlements# -# .t is settled juris!rudence that neither the courts nor 4uasi5judicial bodies can im!ose u!on the !arties a jud"ment different from their com!romise a"reement >which as a alid contract is the law between the !arties themseles? or a"ainst the er' terms and conditions of their a"reement# (e thus held in Municipal Board o Cabanatuan City vs. !amahang Magsasa"a, #nc# that Ba judicial or 4uasi5judicial bod' cannot im!ose u!on the !arties a jud"ment dierent from their real a"reement or a"ainst the er' terms and conditions of the amicable settlement entered into b' them& without runnin" the risk of contraenin" the uniersall' established !rinci!le that a contract is the law between the !arties#B (e stressed therein that B>T?his Court& time and a"ain& has ruled that a com!romise a"reement entered into b' !art'5liti"ants& when not contrar' to law& !ublic order& !ublic !olic'& morals& or "ood custom is a valid contract which is the law between the parties themseles# >Juan5Marcelo& et al# s# Lo im Pah& et al#& 00 SCRA 639?# .t follows& therefore& that a com!romise a"reement& not tainted with infirmit'& irre"ularit'& fraud or ille"alit'& is the law between the !arties who are duty bound to abide by it and observe strictly its terms and conditions. .t is incumbent u!on the courts of justice to hel! deelo! and inculcate in the minds of the !arties5 liti"ants proper respect or, and obedience to, the terms and conditions of this kind of mutual a"reement wheneer it does not e)hibit an' feature or taint of ille"alit' or fraud# Thus we would be enhancin" the salutar' !roisions of Section *& Rule 03& of the $evised $ules o Court and %rticle &'&(, )ew Civil Code & which entrust to the courts the function of enablin" !art'5liti"ants in a ciil suit to reach an amicable settlement of their dis!utes&B and cited our !reious
rulin" in Castro s Castro that ### %s !rinci!io uniersalmente establecido 4ue el conenio es le' entre las !artes# $o debe im!onerse un criterio !or mas acertado 4ue fuese sobre el erdadero contrato de las Partes# Que utilidad !uede !ro!orcionar la dis!osicion del articulo 0309 del nueo codi"o ciil 4ue encomienda al Ju7"ado la funcion de !ersuader a los liti"antes en un asunto ciil a 4ue !rocuren ille"ar a un arre"lo si& des!ues de todo& el criterio del tribunal se ha de im!oner sobre su conenio The onl' case where the court ma' alidl' interene is Bff the !arties and their counsel are to do it ### to assist them in attainin" !recision and accurac' of lan"ua"e that would more or less make it certain that an' dis!ute as to the matters bein" settled would not recur& much less "ie rise to a new controers' 2# As held in the case of Gonzales vs Gonzales, the court cannot den' their a!!roal to a com!romise a"reement& oluntaril' entered into b' the !arties& where there is no alid serious objection& since B>T?he a"reement& therefore& !artakin" of the nature of a contract& is subject to the same le"al !roision !roidin" for the alidit'& enforcement& rescission or annulment of ordinar' contracts# .n enterin" in said com!romise& the !arties were free to make an' sti!ulation not contrar' to law& !ublic interest& or !rinci!les of moralit'& as much as in an' other contract#B As stated aboe& onl' two of herein res!ondentKs& namel'& Conrado Lale7 and Ricardo Carlos& had !resented manifestations as to the Bobjectionable featuresB of the com!romise a"reement si"ned b' them both followin" res!ondent jud"eKs tele"ra!hed but baseless obserations in his Orders of A!ril *1& *91- and Jul' 6& *91- as to the waier and 4uitclaim !roisions bein" Bcontrar' to law& morals and !ublic !olic'&B with Lale7 com!lainin" about !etitioner hain" rene"ed on its alle"ed !romise to "ie him reci!rocal benefits in e)chan"e of his a"reement to turn state witness# Aside from the totall' untenable !osition in which res!ondent jud"e !laced himself b' declarin" the !roisions of !ara"ra!h 1 of the com!romise a"reement oid as to herein res!ondents but alid in toto as to the defendants Paulino @ow and ;u Chiao Chin alias $elson ;u& his decision would arbitraril' substitute his own terms for that a"reed u!on b' the !arties to the com!romise a"reement and baselessl' free herein res!ondents from
their undertakin" thereunder# (ith their names ordered deleted from !ara"ra!h 1 of the com!romise& the' would be bound to no concession nor obli"ation >notwithstandin" that !ursuant thereto the' had in fact e)ecuted the corres!ondin" waier and 4uitclaim therein !roided?& while !etitioner had com!lied with its !art and dischar"ed them from all obli"ations and liabilities& des!ite their admission of com!licit'& !ursuant to !ara"ra!h of the same a"reement >subject onl' to the e)!ress e)ce!tion that !etitioner was not waiin" its ri"hts as to an' other anomalies which mi"ht subse4uentl' be discoered& notwithstandin" res!ondentsK warrant' that the' had not !artici!ated in an' such !rejudicial transactions other than those related to or included in the ciil case and criminal char"e?# 1# There can be no 4uestion that the !arties oluntaril' e)ecuted and entered into the com!romise a"reement# The record shows that all of the !arties !ersonall' si"ned the a"reement# Res!ondentsK oluntar' consent to said a"reement and its due e)ecution with assistance of counsel was confirmed when a week thereafter& their res!ectie5counsels all si"ned the BMotion for Jud"ment on the asis of the Attached Com!romise A"reement# The si"natures of the !arties& !etitioner and res!ondents& and those of their res!ectie counsels& were a"ain affi)ed on the Manifestation and Motion dated A!ril 02& *91-& reiteratin" their !ra'er for a!!roal of the com!romise a"reement as modified !ursuant to res!ondent jud"eKs Order of A!ril *1& *91# Thus& not one of herein res!ondents had eer assailed the com!romise a"reement as not hain" been freel' or oluntaril' entered into# (hen res!ondent jud"e issued his Order for hearin" of A!ril 02& *91adancin" his own obseration as to Bcertain objectionable featuresB and mentionin" that the com!romise referred to com!oundin" a felon'& which is contrar' to law and directin" the !arties to "o oer the same a"ain so that he could a!!roe the same Btakin" into consideration the !roisions of law& as well as !ublic morals and !olic'&B supra& the !arties deferred thereto b' filin" their said Manifestation and Motion of A!ril 02& *91-& wherein the' !ra'ed that BThe !hrase Kand criminal char"e herein aboe mentionedK found in !ara"ra!h 1& !a"e - and the !hrase land criminal char"eK found in !ara"ra!h *3& !a"e 2 of the Com!romise A"reement be deleted from the said Com!romise A"reement dated March *3& *91-&B and reiterated the !ra'er for jud"ment on the basis of the com!romise a"reement& as thus modified# The' made of record& thou"h& that res!ondent jud"eKs iew was in error& thus:
-# The !arties wish to state that the reference to a criminal char"e in the said !ara"ra!hs is !ure oersi"ht on inadertence inasmuch as there is no criminal char"e mentioned in the !ara"ra!hs !recedin" !ara"ra!hs 1 and *3 of the Com!romise A"reement and conse4uentl' the !hrase Kcriminal char"e hereinaboe mentionedK is meanin"less# esides& it has not been the intention of the !arties to com!romise Kthe criminal as!ect of the caseK& not onl' because it would be contrar' to law to do so but !rinci!all' because the defendants are full' aware that such a com!romise ma' be taken as an admission of "uilt and the defendants entered into the KCom!romise A"reementK dated March *3& *91- with the clear understandin" that b' so enterin" into such a"reement& the' are not admittin" nor are the' deemed to admit the commission of an' criminal act# $otwithstandin" res!ondent jud"eKs said Order and subse4uent Order of Jul' 6& *91- settin" the case anew for hearin" and directin" the !arties once more Bto reconsider ### and reformB the waier and 4uitclaim !roisions of !ara"ra!h 1 of the com!romise a"reement and flatl' announcin" that the modification deletin" all reference to the criminal char"e was Bunsatisfactor'B and that Bdro!!in" the com!laint is not enou"hB concession for herein res!ondents& the stark fact remains that not one of res!ondents eer re!udiated the com!romise a"reement nor moed to set aside or annul the same because of alle"ed fraud& iolence or itiated consent 5 which is the remed' aailable in such cases under Article 036 of the Ciil Code# All that res!ondents eer asserted& followin" res!ondent jud"eKs line& was that the waier and 4uitclaim !roisions constitutin" their reci!rocal concession was Bcontrar' to law& morals& "ood customs& !ublic !olic' and !ublic orderB which we hae held to be totall' untenable# ACCORD.$L<;& the modification of and deletions from the com!romise a"reement ordered in res!ondent jud"eKs decision are hereb' set aside as null and oid& and in lieu thereof& jud"ment is hereb' rendered a!!roin" the com!romise a"reement in toto# (ithout !ronouncement as to costs# SO ORD%R%D#
