GR L 55698; (May, 1982) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-55698 May 31, 1982
ENGINEERING EQUIPMENT, INC., petitioner, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, LABOR ARBITER RICARTE T. SORIANO and RODITO SIASICO, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Engineering Equipment, Inc. filed a petition for certiorari to assail the decision of Labor Arbiter Ricarte T. Soriano dated January 10, 1979, which required it to pay respondent Rodito Siasico an amount corresponding to what he should have earned under an overseas assignment agreement. The National Labor Relations Commission affirmed this decision in its resolution dated October 6, 1980. The Supreme Court gave due course to the petition and the case was submitted for decision on August 12, 1981.
Subsequently, on April 15, 1982, the parties submitted a Compromise Agreement to the Court. In the agreement, the company agreed to grant Siasico the total sum of Twelve Thousand Pesos (P12,000.00). Siasico acknowledged receipt of this amount and agreed that it constituted a final and complete settlement of any and all claims arising from his employment or its cessation. Both parties mutually released each other from all claims and agreed to withdraw the pending case, praying for its dismissal with prejudice.
ISSUE
Whether the Compromise Agreement submitted by the parties should be approved by the Supreme Court, thereby dismissing the case.
RULING
Yes, the Compromise Agreement is approved and the case is dismissed. The Supreme Court’s approval is grounded in the fundamental legal principle favoring the amicable settlement of disputes. Compromise agreements are highly favored in law and are explicitly authorized under the Rules of Court as a means to end litigation. The Court examines such agreements to ensure they are not contrary to law, morals, public order, or public policy.
In this case, the agreement was voluntarily executed by the parties, as evidenced by their signatures and the explicit stipulation that it was “free from fraud, misrepresentation or coercion.” The terms are clear: the payment of P12,000.00 constitutes full satisfaction of all claims, and both parties mutually discharge each other from any further liability. There is no indication that the agreement is vitiated by any legal infirmity or that it prejudices the rights of a third party. By settling, the parties have chosen a practical resolution over protracted litigation, which aligns with judicial economy. Consequently, the Court grants the parties’ joint prayer, approves the compromise, and orders the dismissal of the case with prejudice, considering it closed and terminated. No costs are awarded.