RGC CHEMICAL COMPANY INC., PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, V. UNITED LABORATORIES, INC., REYNALDO DAVADILLA, ANGEL V. GATCHALIAN, JR., MARGARITA B. DEL PRADO AND CORKY B. REYES, DEFENDANTS-…
ELBINIAS, J.:
of defendants-appellants United Laboratories, Inc., Reynaldo L.
Davadilla, Angel V. Gatchalian, Jr., Margarita B. Del Prado, and Corky
B. Reyes (“defendants-appellants” for brevity). On August 1, 2012,
defendant-appellant United Laboratories, Inc. (“defendant-appellant
Unilab” for brevity) filed its Motion for Reconsideration[3] of Our Decision[4] dated July 3, 2012.
On September 13, 2012, a Resolution[5]
was issued directing plaintiff-appellee RGC Chemical Company, Inc.
(“plaintiff-appellee” for brevity) to file its Comment to
defendant-appellant Unilab’s Motion for Reconsideration[6].
However, instead of filing its Comment, plaintiff-appellee filed on November 8, 2012 a “MANIFESTATION”[7] which stated that the parties had entered into a Compromise Agreement.[8]
For their part, defendants-appellants filed a “MOTION TO
RENDER JUDGMENT BASED ON COMPROMISE AGREEMENT AND TO CONSIDER THE
JUDGMENT FULLY SATISFIED”[9] (“Motion” for brevity), which stated the following, among others:
“2. Subsequently, plaintiff-appellee and
defendants-appellants reached an amicable settlement with respect to
each other’s claims and executed a Compromise Agreement for this purpose. xxxxxx
3. Relevantly, defendants-appellants have already fully paid plaintiff-appellee the full amount stated in the Compromise Agreement.
4. Thus, considering that the parties have already reached a
settlement and considering further that defendants-appellants have fully
paid plaintiff-appellee the amount stated in the Compromise Agreement,
it is respectfully prayed that judgment be rendered based on the
Compromise Agreement and that such Judgment be considered fully
satisfied.”[10] (Emphasis Supplied)
Defendants-appellants attached to their Motion[11] a copy of the “Compromise Agreement”[12] dated October 25, 2012, which read as follows:
“NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the foregoing
premises and the covenants hereunder set forth, the parties have
mutually agreed as follows:1. As full settlement of RGC’s claims, UNILAB shall pay in favor
of RGC the amount of NINE HUNDRED FIFTY THOUSAND PESOS ONLY
(Php950,000.00) upon execution of this Agreement. The acceptance by RGC
of the Check shall only be deemed payment when said Check has been
cashed by the RGC or Mr. Cortez.2. This Compromise Agreement is a complete settlement of all the
parties’ claims, demands, complaint and counterclaims against each other
and the individual respondents in this case with respect to the
controversy subject of the Collection Case. Consequently, by this
Compromise Agreement, the parties shall irrevocably waive, release, and
extinguish any and all claims and causes of action arising from, or in
connection with the subject matter of this case, upon full compliance by
the parties of their respective obligations under this Compromise
Agreement. xxx”[13]
Such terms of the “Compromise Agreement”[14] are shown not to be contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order, or public policy.
WHEREFORE,
defendants-appellants’ “MOTION TO RENDER JUDGMENT BASED ON COMPROMISE
AGREEMENT AND TO CONSIDER THE JUDGMENT FULLY SATISFIED” is GRANTED. The Decision dated July 3, 2012 is SET ASIDE.
Accordingly, the parties’ “Compromise Agreement” is APPROVED.
The “Compromise Agreement” and its terms are adopted as the Judgment in
this case. The parties are enjoined to abide by the Agreement in good
faith.
Consequently, the Appeal at bench is considered CLOSED and TERMINATED.
SO ORDERED.
Dimaampao (Chairman) and Antonio-Valenzuela, JJ., concur.
[1] Rollo, pp. 166-176
[2] Rollo, pp. 33-65
[3] Rollo, pp. 185-199
[4] Rollo, pp. 166-176
[5] Rollo, p. 218
[6] Rollo, pp. 185-199
[7] Rollo, pp. 234-236
[8] Rollo, pp. 234-236
[9] Rollo, pp. 245-246
[10] Rollo, pp. 245-246
[11] Rollo, pp. 245-246
[12] Rollo, pp. 248-251
[13] Rollo, p. 249
[14] Rollo, pp. 248-251