GR 181675; (June, 2009) (Digest)
G.R. No. 181675 ; June 22, 2009
Spouses EDUARDO and MAYDA TANKIANG, Petitioners, vs. Hon. SELMA P. ALARAZ, in her capacity as the Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati, Branch 62, Sheriff ROMEO C. GONZALES, Branch Sheriff of RTC Makati, Branch 62, Sheriff REY B. MAGSAJO, Deputy Sheriff of the Metropolitan Trial Court (MTC), Makati City, Branch 61, and METROPOLITAN BANK & TRUST COMPANY, INC., Respondents.
FACTS
Petitioners Spouses Eduardo and Mayda Tankiang filed a petition under Rule 45 assailing the Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 89342. Instead of filing a Reply to Metrobank’s Comment, the petitioners submitted a Manifestation and/or Motion for Judgment Based on a Compromise Agreement dated January 8, 2009. The Compromise Agreement was entered into by the Spouses Tankiang and LNC 3 Asset Management Inc., with the conformity of respondent Metropolitan Bank & Trust Company (Metrobank). The agreement was intended to settle all suits and countersuits pending in various courts (referred to as the “Civil Cases”) arising from loan transactions between the Spouses Tankiang (as borrower/mortgagor) and Metrobank (as creditor/mortgagee), and the subsequent sale/transfer of the loan account and collaterals to Asia Recovery Corporation and then to LNC. Metrobank filed a Comment confirming that the parties had settled their differences.
ISSUE
Whether the Compromise Agreement dated January 8, 2009, is valid and should be approved by the Court.
RULING
The Supreme Court APPROVED the Compromise Agreement and rendered judgment in accordance with it, thereby DISMISSING the instant case. The Court held that under Article 1306 of the Civil Code, contracting parties may establish stipulations, clauses, terms, and conditions as they deem convenient, provided they are not contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order, or public policy. A compromise agreement is a contract where parties make reciprocal concessions to resolve differences and end litigation. The Court found the submitted Compromise Agreement to have been validly executed and not contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order, or public policy.