Compromise Agreement Civil Case Philippines

Considering that the obligation to adjudicate had been renewed because of the execution of valid compromise agreements and Oscar`s appearance of disinterest in exercising his right of withdrawal, the enforcement decision issued by the RTC on 22 August 2005 in civil case No. 95-020 should be set aside. Although Nocom is not in a position to properly substitute itself as a party to the proceedings, it is indisputable that it provided the amount of P9,790,612.00 plus P147,059.18 commission paid by the farmers to the RTC for the collection of the three parcels of SMS. That is in his interest. Nocom is entitled to reimbursement of these amounts and that is the only reason why the Court authorises its intervention. 161029 of 19 January 2005, [SMS] submitted and filed various petitions and requests which prevented the execution of that decision. However, we do not agree with the CA that the present case can be dismissed because it has previously brought an action for annulment of the judgment dealing essentially with the same facts, problems and remedies. While the objective [SMS] for the filing of the case in question is the same as that set out in point 171754 of the G.R. (resulting from the application for annulment of the judgment), namely to prevent the execution of the decision of 19 January 2005, there is however no forum shopping.

While Civil Case No. 05-172 had already been dismissed because the farmers themselves had withdrawn their application to revoke the IPA before the RTC, nocom remains without the legal personality to replace the former as a party in the event of withdrawal. . . .

Follow me!