GR L 47740; (July, 1982) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-47740 July 20, 1982
Lim Pin, petitioner, vs. Sps. Conchita Liao Tan and Tan Cho Hua and Hon. Cancio C. Garcia, Presiding Judge of Branch I, City Court of Caloocan City, respondents.
FACTS
Private respondents, as lessors, filed an unlawful detainer case against petitioner Lim Pin for non-payment of rentals. During the hearing on October 19, 1977, petitioner was absent, but her son George Hung and her counsel were present. With the court’s initiative, a compromise agreement was formulated and signed by George Hung and private respondent Conchita Liao Tan, assisted by their respective lawyers. The agreement detailed accrued rentals and a payment schedule, and it included George Hung’s affirmation before the court that he had full authority to represent his mother. The court approved the agreement and rendered judgment based on its terms. Petitioner later filed a motion for reconsideration, denying she authorized her son or her counsel to enter into the compromise.
ISSUE
Whether the respondent judge committed grave abuse of discretion in rendering and subsequently enforcing a judgment based on a compromise agreement allegedly entered into without the petitioner’s authority.
RULING
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, finding no grave abuse of discretion. The legal logic centered on the validity of the compromise agreement and the authority of the representative. The trial court’s factual finding that George Hung possessed the requisite authority was supported by evidence, including his active participation in all prior hearings and the court’s own observation that petitioner relied on her son for decisions. His subsequent denial of authority, which led to a contempt citation he did not appeal, was deemed unreliable. Furthermore, even assuming arguendo a lack of authority, the compromise agreement would not be void but merely unenforceable, capable of ratification. The Court found such ratification in petitioner’s own subsequent act. Specifically, a few days after the judgment, she filed an “Ex-Parte Motion To Withdraw Deposits” in a related consignation case, expressly citing the need to implement the very compromise agreement to pay the accrued rentals. This constituted a clear adoption of the agreement’s terms. A compromise judgment is final and executory, and the lower court’s denial of the motion for reconsideration and issuance of the writ of execution were proper.