GR L 62925; (December, 1984) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-62925 December 26, 1984
THE MANILA BANKING CORP., petitioner, vs. TMBC EMPLOYEES COUNCIL AND THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, respondents.
FACTS
The case originated from a labor dispute between The Manila Banking Corporation (MANILA BANK) and the TMBC Employees Council (TMBCEC) concerning claims for cost of living allowances under Presidential Decree No. 1634 and payment for unworked regular holidays. The dispute was elevated to the Supreme Court.
Prior to a judicial resolution on the merits, the parties opted to amicably settle their differences. They jointly submitted to the Court a Compromise Agreement outlining the terms for a complete settlement. The agreement was conditioned upon its ratification by at least a majority of the TMBCEC’s general membership and its subsequent approval by the Supreme Court.
ISSUE
Whether the Compromise Agreement submitted by the parties should be approved by the Supreme Court.
RULING
The Supreme Court approved the Compromise Agreement and rendered judgment in accordance with its terms. The legal logic for this approval is rooted in the strong public policy favoring the amicable settlement of disputes, particularly in labor relations, to foster industrial peace and harmonious employer-employee relationships. The Court’s role in reviewing such agreements is limited to ensuring they are not contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order, or public policy.
The agreement stipulated that MANILA BANK, without admitting liability, would pay a sum of P2,500 to each covered employee, which amount would be applied to offset a previous loan extended by the bank. In return, TMBCEC expressly acknowledged this payment as a full and complete settlement of all claims related to the cost of living allowance and unworked holidays. A separate provision committed the bank to favorably consider a future allowance during upcoming collective bargaining negotiations. The Court found nothing in these terms that violated legal norms or public policy. Consequently, by approving the agreement, the Court converted the parties’ private accord into a binding judgment, effectively terminating the litigation with finality.