Case Digest (G.R. No. 212092)
Facts:
Peoples General Insurance Corp. (Formerly: People's Trans-East Asia Insurance Corp.) v. Col. Felix Mateo A. Runes, G.R. No. 212092, April 08, 2015, Supreme Court Second Division, Mendoza, J., writing for the Court.The respondent, Col. Felix Mateo A. Runes (First Party), filed an action for sum of money with damages against People’s General Insurance Corporation (formerly People’s Trans-East Asia Insurance Corp.; Second Party) and Spouses Ver and Jovencia Manuzon (doing business as Empherical Construction). The case was docketed as Civil Case No. 01-101210 before Branch 19 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Manila. The complaint alleged liability under a performance bond issued by the insurer in the amount of Php1,470,134.70.
On July 28, 2008, the RTC rendered judgment in favor of Runes ordering the defendants jointly and severally to pay amounts representing overpayments, actual damages, liquidated damages for delay, and an award of attorneys’ fees. The Court of Appeals (CA), in CA-G.R. CV No. 93649, affirmed the RTC’s judgment but set aside the award of attorneys’ fees and clarified that the insurer’s liability was to the extent of the bond (Php1,470,134.70).
The insurer sought relief from the Supreme Court by filing a petition for review on certiorari (Rule 45). The Supreme Court denied the petition on June 25, 2014 for failure to show reversible error. The insurer moved for reconsideration of that denial and the motion was deemed submitted for resolution.
Before entry of final judgment, the parties negotiated an amicable settlement. On January 14, 2015 they executed a Compromise Agreement and filed a Joint Motion for Judgment Based on Attached Compromise Agreement with the Court. The agreement provided that the insurer would pay Runes One Million Pesos (Php1,000,000.00) in six monthly installments, evidenced by twelve checks divided between Runes and his counsel, with a default clause making the entire balance immediately due after default in at least two installments; it also contained a broad release of claims. The parties asked the Supreme Court to approve and adopt the compromise as the Court’s decision.
The Supreme Court, Second Division, thereafter re...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Should the Supreme Court grant the Joint Motion for Judgment Based on Attached Compromise Agreement and adopt the Compromise Agreement as its decision?
- Is the Compromise Agreement valid and enforceable as a full and final satisfaction and release of the First Party’s claims, and does its approval properly terminate the action while preserv...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)