G.R. No. L-26153 - Tenchavez vs. Atlas Consolidated Mining and Development Co.

Filing of joint petition and approval of compromise agreement
Plaintiff-appellant Gualberto Tenchavez and defendant-appellant Atlas Consolidated Mining and Development Company filed, on April 14, 1967, a joint petition for judgment in accordance with a compromise agreement attached to the petition.
The compromise agreement was executed jointly by the parties in the form of a public instrument.
On May 24, 1967, the Court approved the compromise agreement and rendered judgment in accordance with it, ordering the parties to comply with all the terms and stipulations.

Motions for reconsideration filed by oppositors
On July 1, 1967, I. V. Binamira and F. B. Barria filed a motion for reconsideration of the Court’s May 24, 1967 decision.
The oppositors prayed for reconsideration and further relief, including restoration and disposition of:

The oppositors also prayed that, in the event of an adverse ruling, Atlas Consolidated Mining and Development Company be ordered to pay them the unpaid balance of P30,000, which Atlas allegedly acknowledged “confidentially” in its letter to Tenchavez dated April 19, 1967.
On a supplemental motion for reconsideration filed on July 9, 1967, the same oppositors alleged that they had filed in the Court of First Instance of Cebu Civil Case No. R-10051 to declare the compromise agreement fraudulent, illegal, and without force and effect.
On that basis, they prayed that the Court hold in abeyance any action on the compromise agreement until Civil Case No. R-10051 would be finally resolved.

Court action on motions for reconsideration and subsequent pleadings
On August 24, 1967, the Court issued a resolution requiring adverse parties to comment within ten days from notice.
Ernesto T. Morales filed a manifestation and comment on September 5, 1967, praying for denial of the motions for reconsideration.
Atlas filed its own comment on September 13, 1967, reiterating its prayer for approval of the compromise agreement.
Attorneys Elias S. Mendoza and Domingo Quibranza, as oppositors, filed a comment on October 5, 1967 stating that granting the motion for reconsideration and supplemental motion would tend to aid the Court in resolving the incident raised in both motions fairly.
Oppositors Binamira and Barria filed additional observations on October 9, 1967, in relation to the comments submitted by Atty. Morales and Atlas.
On October 19, 1967, Tenchavez filed a reply praying that the compromise agreement be declared fraudulent and, in the alternative, that action on its approval be deferred until after Civil Case No. R-10051 was finally resolved.
On January 30, 1968, Atlas filed a manifestation praying for denial of the motions for reconsideration previously mentioned.

Withdrawal of opposition and request for finality and execution of compromise judgment
On January 3, 1969, a pleading entitled “WITHDRAWAL OF OPPOSITION TO THE APPROVAL OF THE COMPROMISE AGREEMENT” was filed by plaintiff-appellant Gualberto B. Tenchavez, with the marital consent of Elena S. Tenchavez, and by Attys. Barria and Binamira.
The pleading prayed:

that the withdrawal of opposition be approved;
that the compromise judgment dated May 24, 1967 be declared final and executory; and
that Atlas Consolidated Mining & Dev. Corp. et al. be ordered to deposit P180,000.00 with the Court of First Instance of Cebu at once so that related cases would be thereafter deemed settled, closed, and terminated.

A copy of the pleading was served on Atlas through its attorney of record and on other parties in interest, including Attorneys Ernesto T. Morales, Virgilio Llanto, Elias Mendoza, and Domingo Quibranza.

Comments on the withdrawal and final resolution
On January 10, 1969, the Court issued a resolution requiring all parties concerned to comment on the pleading for withdrawal within ten days from notice.
Comments were filed as follows:

On January 28, 1969, Atlas prayed that the compromise judgment b...(Subscriber-Only)

Whether the withdrawal of opposition to the approval of the compromise agreement should be approved
Whether the Court should approve the withdrawal filed on January 3, 1969 by Tenchavez, with consent, and by Attys. Binamira and Barria.

Whether the May 24, 1967 compromise judgment should be declared final and executory
Whether, after the withdrawal and comments, the judgment by compromise previously rendered on May 24, 1967 should be declared final and executory.
Whether the stated cond...(Subscriber-Only)