G.R. No. L-58579 August 24, 1984
CECILIA ELIZALDE-LANDEGGER, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF MANILA, MANUEL ELIZALDE, ELIZALDE & CO., INC., ET AL., respondents.

FACTS

This case originated from a petition for the examination of the books of account of Elizalde & Co., Inc. and its numerous subsidiary corporations. The petitioner, Cecilia Elizalde-Landegger, is a daughter of the late Joaquin M. Elizalde and a resident of New York. She sought the examination in connection with the settlement of her father’s testate estate, presumably to ascertain the estate’s assets held within the corporate structures.
The Court of First Instance of Manila, in an order dated February 13, 1979, allowed the examination but limited its scope strictly to the identification of estate assets. The order explicitly excluded any inquiry into potential evidence of fraud. The Court of Appeals sustained this limited order in its decision dated July 16, 1981. Dissatisfied, Cecilia Elizalde-Landegger elevated the matter to the Supreme Court via a petition for review.

ISSUE

Whether the Supreme Court should dismiss the petition for review in light of a subsequent amicable settlement executed by the parties.

RULING

Yes, the petition is dismissed with prejudice. The legal logic is grounded in the fundamental principle that courts encourage the amicable settlement of disputes among parties. Upon the filing of the appeal and after the submission of briefs, the private respondents filed a motion to dismiss the appeal with prejudice. They attached as basis a compromise agreement executed on May 16 and May 27, 1983, in Makati and New York.
A critical stipulation in that settlement agreement, found in paragraph 3, expressly required the petitioner, Cecilia Elizalde-Landegger, to withdraw the instant petition for review before the Supreme Court. In a manifestation dated July 27, 1984, the petitioner’s counsel stated he had no objection to the motion to dismiss. This manifestation constituted a clear acquiescence to the terms of the compromise and a voluntary relinquishment of the right to pursue the appeal.
Consequently, the Supreme Court, noting the parties’ mutual agreement to terminate the litigation, granted the motion. The dismissal with prejudice signifies that the rights of the parties are to be governed by their compromise agreement, and the same cause of action cannot be litigated anew. The resolution renders academic any review of the propriety of the lower courts’ orders limiting the scope of the book examination, as the underlying controversy has been extinguished by the parties’ own accord.