G.R. No. L-41885 December 19, 1980
NAUTICA SHIPPING AGENCY AND MANAGEMENT COMPANY, INC., petitioner, vs. NATIONAL SEAMEN BOARD, CRESENCIO M. SIDDAYAO, in his capacity as Executive Director, OSCAR TORRES, in his capacity as Hearing Officer and Chief Legal Officer, and BERLITA SUBADE, respondents.

FACTS

The petitioner, Nautica Shipping Agency, as agent for Gloria International Corporation, employed Jose Subade as a seafarer. Jose Subade died on March 1, 1974, due to burns sustained from a fire aboard the vessel M/S LUCENT. His parents initially filed a claim for death compensation with the Workmen’s Compensation Unit (WCU), which granted an award. The petitioner satisfied this WCU award. Subsequently, the deceased’s widow, respondent Berlita Subade, filed a separate claim for death benefits with the National Seamen Board (NSB). The petitioner opposed this NSB claim, arguing it was barred by the prior WCU award. The NSB, however, ruled in favor of the widow, ordering the petitioner and the principal to pay a substantial sum in US dollars. The petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied, and a writ of execution was issued.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the subsequent compromise agreement between the parties renders the petition moot and warrants the dismissal of the case.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court approved the compromise agreement and terminated the case. The parties submitted a “Satisfaction of Claim” wherein the widow, Berlita Subade, acknowledged receipt of P18,000.00 from the petitioner as full and final settlement of all claims arising from her husband’s death. This document explicitly covered the awards in the contested NSB case and the pending Supreme Court petition. The Court emphasized that compromise agreements are a favored means of settling disputes to achieve peace and avoid prolonged litigation. Such agreements have the force and effect of a final judgment upon court approval. The Court found the presented agreement to be not contrary to law, public order, public policy, morals, or good customs. Consequently, the legal controversy between the parties was extinguished by their mutual accord. The Court’s role shifted from adjudicating the original jurisdictional and double recovery arguments to simply reviewing and approving the parties’ voluntary settlement. By approving the compromise, the Court effectively lifted the previously issued temporary restraining order and dismissed the petition, as there was no longer an active case or controversy to resolve. The decision underscores the judicial policy of encouraging amicable settlements, which are binding on the parties and conclusive upon the court.