Facts:

In the case of Asset Pool A (SPV-AMC), Inc. vs. Clark Development Corporation, the petitioner, Asset Pool A (SPV-AMC), Inc. (APA), was the transferee and successor-in-interest of United Coconut Planters Bank (UCPB) and Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company (Metrobank). These banks acted as secured creditors for Mondragon Leisure and Resorts Corporation (MLRC) in the development and operation of the Tourism Estate Phase I, later known as the Mimosa Leisure Estate (MLE). The appeal arose from a decision promulgated on September 4, 2012, in CA-G.R. SP No. 104129, wherein the Court of Appeals dismissed APA's petition for certiorari. The case stemmed from an order issued by the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 62, in Angeles City, Pampanga, on June 24, 2008, concerning an action for specific performance and damages by APA, compelling CDC to include claims of the secured creditors in the bidding documents for MLE's privatization. Additionally, the petitioner challenged a resol

...

Facts:

Background and Parties

• The petitioner, Asset Pool A (SPV-AMC), Inc. (APA), is the transferee and successor-in-interest of United Coconut Planters Bank (UCPB) and Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company (Metrobank).
• These banks were the secured creditors of Mondragon Leisure and Resorts Corporation (MLRC), which required working capital for the development and operation of the Tourism Estate Phase I, later known as the Mimosa Leisure Estate (MLE).

Origin of the Dispute

• The dispute arose from APA’s initiative to compel Clark Development Corporation (CDC), the respondent, to include the secured creditors’ claims in the documents accompanying the bidding process for the privatization of MLE.
• APA had filed an action for specific performance and damages in Civil Case No. 13926 before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) Branch 62 in Angeles City, Pampanga.
• The RTC had issued a June 24, 2008 order, which APA sought to challenge through a petition for certiorari in the Court of Appeals (CA).

Procedural History and Prior Motions

• CA-G.R. SP No. 104129: The Court of Appeals dismissed APA’s petition for certiorari against the RTC’s order.
• APA also challenged a CA resolution (February 7, 2013) which denied its motion for reconsideration.
• Despite these adverse decisions, proceedings for the privatization of the MLE continued, with CDC announcing and scheduling a new public bidding process on August 19, 2015 (with the Terms of Reference issued for October 13, 2015, later moved to October 27, 2015).

Intervention of Temporary Restraining Order and Subsequent Developments

• In response to APA’s urgent motion, the Court issued a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) on October 21, 2015, to enjoin CDC and its agents from implementing the 2015 Terms of Reference and from disposing of the MLE.
• On November 6, 2015, while the appeal was still pending, the parties jointly submitted an Urgent Joint Motion to Render Judgment Based on a Compromise Agreement aiming to resolve all pending disputes.
• Attached to the motion was a detailed compromise agreement setting forth the terms and conditions for the settlement of all related cases.

Key Elements of the Compromise Agreement

• Payment Provisions
• CDC agreed to pay APA PhP277.413 million by Manager’s or Cashier’s Check, representing APA’s secured creditor share (12.5%) in the gross gaming revenues of the Regency Casino up to June 30, 2015.
• The revenue share arrangement from the Regency Casino was to continue accruing until the successful privatization of the MLE, with annual payments to APA.
• Settlement of Disputes and Withdrawal of Cases
• Upon signing, both parties agreed to file a joint motion to render judgment and lift the TRO.
• They committed to file pleadings to dismiss all cases listed in the attached Appendices I and II, covering disputes between APA and CDC, as well as disputes involving MLRC.
• Failure by APA to timely file the necessary pleadings would delay the release of certain payments.
• Release, Waiver, and Final Settlement Provisions
• APA waived all derivative rights, privileges, interests, and obligations over the MLE and the secured creditors.
• Both parties permanently waived any other claims or counterclaims, including monetary claims, damages, and attorney’s fees, arising from the same set of facts.
• The parties stipulated that the agreement represented a full and final settlement of their mutual rights and obligations concerning the disputed cases.
• Effect and Scope of the Agreement
• The agreement was clear that it did not constitute an admission of fault or liability by either party.
• It was emphasized that the compromise agreement, once approved by the Supreme Court, would have the res judicata effect on the settled matters.
• The execution of the compromise would fully discharge any mutual claims arising from the underlying contractual relationship under the February 20, 2004 MOA.

Approval and Judicial Endorsement

• On approval by the Supreme Court in G.R. No. 205915, the compromise agreement was to take effect and bind the parties.
• The Court, in its judgment, endorsed the settlement provisions by approving the compromise agreement and ordering compliance with its terms.
• The temporary restraining order issued on October 21, 2015, was lifted and set aside as part of the resolution.

Issue:

Validity and Enforceability of the Compromise Agreement

• Whether the compromise agreement, which sought to settle all pending disputes, was in adherence with legal standards and substantive requirements.
• Whether the agreement’s stipulations concerning the waiver and final settlement of claims were valid and enforceable under the law.

Judicial Authority to Approve and Render Judgment Based on the Compromise

• Whether the Court had the power to approve the compromise agreement and render judgment in accordance with its terms.
• Whether the court could lift the temporary restraining order and dismiss the appeal based solely on the parties’ compromise.

Effect on Multiple Pending Cases

• The implications of including cases not initially listed in Appendices I and II, due to the lack of knowledge or oversight.
• Whether the incorporation of all related cases within the compromise agreement accorded resolution and finality to all disputes stemming from the MLE privatization process.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)