GR 49807; (May, 1981) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-49807 May 18, 1981
AUGUSTO D. APO, PRESCILLANO S. AGUINALDO, ROMEO B. IGLESIA, CEFERINO RIVERA & THE HON. NELLY L. ROMERO VALDELLON, JUDGE, CFI OF RIZAL, BRANCH XXII, petitioners, vs. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS & TERENCIO C. RAÑON, respondents.
FACTS
The petitioners and private respondent Terencio C. Rañon were incorporators of Apollo Surveying Company, Inc. A dispute arose when Rañon, as President, encashed a treasury warrant payable to the corporation. Petitioner Augusto D. Apo denied endorsing the warrant. Petitioners ousted Rañon and filed an estafa complaint against him. Rañon countered with a damages suit. Petitioners failed to appear at the pre-trial, leading to an ex-parte judgment against them for damages totaling P41,500. After the judgment became final, a writ of execution was issued, and Apo’s property was attached and sold at public auction to Rañon. Subsequently, petitioners moved to set aside the judgment, claiming lack of notice of the pre-trial. The trial court, “in the interest of justice,” granted the motion and set aside its final decision. Meanwhile, in a related criminal case, Rañon was convicted of estafa through falsification. Rañon challenged the trial court’s orders setting aside the judgment via certiorari in the Court of Appeals, which reversed the trial court and reinstated the final and executory damage award.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in revoking the trial court’s orders that set aside its final and executory judgment based on grounds of due process and supervening events.
RULING
The Supreme Court did not reach a substantive ruling on the legal issues presented. Instead, it approved a Compromise Agreement submitted by the principal parties, petitioner Augusto D. Apo and respondent Terencio C. Rañon. The agreement stipulated that for a consideration of P50,000, Rañon would reconvey the auctioned property to Apo and both parties would release each other from all liabilities arising from the civil case. The Court noted that the attached property belonged solely to Apo, who was the principal petitioner, and that the agreement correctly did not stipulate anything regarding the separate criminal conviction. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition and enjoined the parties to abide by the terms of their compromise, thereby resolving the controversy without addressing the technical arguments on finality of judgment, due process, or the effect of the supervening criminal conviction.