GR 183322; (October, 2009) (Digest)
G.R. No. 183322, October 30, 2009
GOV. ANTONIO P. CALINGIN, Petitioner, vs. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION and GRACE L. ANAYRON, Respondents.
FACTS
This case originated from Civil Service Commission (CSC) Resolutions ordering the reinstatement and payment of back salaries and benefits to respondent Grace L. Anayron, an Agriculturist II of Misamis Oriental, covering the period from July 12, 1999, to December 31, 2006. Petitioner Governor Antonio P. Calingin challenged these resolutions before the Court of Appeals and subsequently elevated the matter to the Supreme Court via a Petition for Review. While the petition was pending, the parties executed a Compromise Agreement dated October 6, 2008. The Province of Misamis Oriental, represented by its incumbent Governor Oscar S. Moreno, agreed to pay Anayron a final settlement of One Million Pesos (PhP 1,000,000.00) representing her back salaries and benefits, plus an additional PhP 100,000.00 for her mandatory contributions. In return, Anayron waived all claims arising from the case.
The parties jointly submitted the agreement to the Supreme Court for approval. The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), commenting for respondent CSC, initially sought clarification on whether the provincial sanggunian approved the agreement and appropriated the necessary funds, and on Anayron’s exact reinstatement date. Governor Moreno filed a Manifestation attaching certified copies of Sangguniang Panlalawigan Ordinance No. 1075-2008, which appropriated the settlement amount, and Resolution No. 1076-2008, which authorized the compromise. The OSG, satisfied with these submissions, subsequently expressed no objection to the agreement’s approval.
ISSUE
Whether the Compromise Agreement executed by the parties is valid and may be approved by the Court.
RULING
Yes, the Supreme Court approved the Compromise Agreement. The Court emphasized that a compromise agreement is a contract where parties make reciprocal concessions to avoid or terminate litigation. For such an agreement to be valid, it must comply with the requisites and principles of contracts under law and must not be contrary to law, morals, good customs, public policy, and public order.
Upon review, the Court found the agreement validly executed. The concerns raised by the OSG were adequately addressed by the supporting documents, which confirmed that the Sangguniang Panlalawigan had duly authorized the compromise and appropriated the necessary public funds through an ordinance. The terms of the agreement provided a full and final settlement, with Anayron receiving a specified sum and waiving all further claims. The Court held that the agreement represented a mutual resolution of the dispute, avoided further protracted litigation, and was not contrary to any legal or public policy considerations. Consequently, the Court approved the Compromise Agreement and adopted it as the decision of the Court, ordering the parties to comply faithfully with its terms.