G.R. No. 118531 August 28, 1995
JULIANA D. DEL ROSARIO, petitioner, vs. HON. JOB MADAYAG, in his capacity as Presiding Judge of Branch 145, RTC, Makati, and MA. CECILIA S. LEVISTE, respondents.

FACTS

Private respondent Ma. Cecilia Leviste filed a complaint for Breach of Contract with Damages against petitioner Juliana del Rosario and others concerning lost balikbayan boxes. After the case was archived twice, petitioner received an alias summons in 1994. During a pre-trial conference on October 10, 1994, only private respondent’s counsel appeared, armed with a special power of attorney. The judge encouraged settlement. On that date, private respondent’s counsel, together with petitioner and her counsel, filed a Joint Motion to Dismiss embodying a compromise agreement, wherein the complaint would be dismissed in consideration of a P7,000.00 payment to private respondent.
The following day, private respondent’s counsel filed an Ex-Parte Motion to Recall the Joint Motion to Dismiss, alleging that private respondent, upon her arrival from Japan, denounced the agreement and was not amenable to its terms. Respondent Judge granted the motion to recall and denied the motion to dismiss. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied, prompting this petition for certiorari, alleging grave abuse of discretion.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Judge committed grave abuse of discretion in granting the motion to recall and denying the motion to dismiss based on the compromise agreement.

RULING

No, respondent Judge did not commit grave abuse of discretion. A compromise agreement is a contract perfected by consent. While it generally has the effect of res judicata, it can be set aside where the consent of a party is vitiated. Here, private respondent, through her counsel’s special power of attorney, was authorized to settle. However, her immediate filing of a motion to recall the very next day constituted an express repudiation of the consent given by her counsel. This swift repudiation demonstrated that her counsel may have acted beyond the scope of his authority, especially given the vast disparity between the original claim of over P300,000 and the settlement amount of P7,000. The court noted it was unconvinced private respondent would agree to such terms. Since private respondent lost no time in rejecting the agreement and did not avail of its benefits, the agreement was not binding. Therefore, it was not a ministerial duty for the trial court to approve the compromise, and its orders were a proper exercise of judicial discretion. The petition was dismissed.