G.R. No. L-39324. July 16, 1975.
CATALINO MAGDANGAL, BUENAVENTURA SENECIO, ALBERTO DOREN, ALFREDO SOBLANO, SR., FEDERICO SUMAYLO, JR., and BERNARDO SOBLANO, petitioners, vs. HAWAIIAN-PHILIPPINE COMPANY, HON. RAFAEL C. CLIMACO, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental, Branch 1, Silay City and THE PROVINCIAL SHERIFF OF NEGROS OCCIDENTAL, Bacolod City, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners, former employees and union officers of Hawaiian-Philippine Company, participated in a strike in 1968 and were presumably dismissed. They, along with other strikers, later filed an unfair labor practice case (CIR Case No. 5240-ULP) against the company. This case was amicably settled via a November 5, 1969 agreement, approved by the CIR. Under its terms, the twelve individual complainants, including the six petitioners, waived reinstatement, were considered retired, and received a total of P70,000. The company paid P65,000 immediately, with the balance of P5,000 payable after the complainants and their families vacated the company houses they occupied as employees. The complainants expressly bound themselves to vacate these houses within thirty days from the signing.
Despite receiving their shares of the P65,000, petitioners failed to vacate the company houses. Consequently, the company filed an ejectment suit in the Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental on September 8, 1971. Petitioners defended by claiming their employment status was still pending in another CIR case (No. 160-ULP-Iloilo) and that the company had not fully paid the agreed amount, alleging they were entitled to P840,000 total. The trial court found these defenses baseless and ordered their ejectment, a judgment which became final and for which a writ of execution was issued.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of First Instance correctly ordered the ejectment of the petitioners from the company houses based on the final and executory compromise agreement.

RULING

Yes, the petition is devoid of merit. The Supreme Court upheld the lower court’s decision and the issuance of the writ of execution. The legal logic is clear and multi-faceted. First, jurisdiction was properly vested in the Court of First Instance because the ejectment action was filed well beyond one year from the petitioners’ contractual obligation to vacate, making it an accion publiciana, not a summary unlawful detainer case. Second, the amicable settlement in CIR Case No. 5240-ULP was a valid, binding, and judicially approved contract. By its explicit terms, petitioners agreed to vacate the houses in exchange for monetary consideration, which they received. Their subsequent refusal constituted a clear breach.
Third, petitioners’ proffered defenses were correctly rejected. The pendency of CIR Case No. 160-ULP-Iloilo was irrelevant as it did not involve their employment status, which was conclusively settled by their waiver of reinstatement in the compromise agreement. Their allegation of non-payment of the full P70,000 was contradicted by the agreement’s plain language stating the total was for all twelve complainants collectively, not individually. The company fulfilled its obligation by delivering the P65,000 check as stipulated. Any dispute among the strikers regarding the distribution of that sum was an intra-union matter not affecting the company’s right to eject. Finally, petitioners were not denied due process; they were represented by counsel throughout the proceedings, and the judgment had long become final and executory. Execution of such a