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

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-26153)

Factual Background

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

On July 1, 1967, oppositors I. V. Binamira and F. B. Barria filed a motion for reconsideration of the May 24, 1967 decision. Their motion sought restoration and further disposition of their opposition to approval of the compromise agreement and the dismissal of the appeal. They also sought to record their attorneys lien, and, in the event of an adverse ruling, they prayed that Atlas Consolidated Mining and Development Company be ordered to pay them the unpaid balance of P30,000 acknowledged by Atlas “confidentially” in its letter to Tenchavez dated April 19, 1967.

On July 9, 1967, the same oppositors filed a supplemental motion for reconsideration, alleging 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. They asked the Court to hold action on the compromise agreement in abeyance until Civil Case No. R-10051 was finally resolved.

Supreme Court Action on Motions and the Subsequent Pleadings

On August 24, 1967, the Court issued a resolution requiring the adverse parties to comment within ten days from notice on the motions for reconsideration. Ernesto T. Morales filed a manifestation and comment on September 5, 1967, praying that the motions for reconsideration be denied. Atlas filed its own comment on September 13, 1967, reiterating its prayer for approval of the compromise agreement.

On October 5, 1967, attorneys Elias S. Mendoza and Domingo Quibranza, as oppositors, commented that granting the motions for reconsideration would aid the Court in resolving the incident raised by the motions. On October 9, 1967, oppositors Binamira and Barria filed additional observations responsive to the comments submitted by Morales and Atlas.

On October 19, 1967, Tenchavez filed a reply, praying for a declaration that the compromise agreement was fraudulent and, alternatively, requesting deferral of action on the approval pending final resolution of Civil Case No. R-10051. On January 30, 1968, Atlas filed a further manifestation praying for denial of the motions for reconsideration.

Withdrawal of Opposition and Efforts to Settle the Related Cases

On January 3, 1969, a pleading titled “WITHDRAWAL OF OPPOSITION TO THE APPROVAL OF THE COMPROMISE AGREEMENT” was filed. The withdrawal was filed by plaintiff-appellant Gualberto B. Tenchavez, with the marital consent of Elena S. Tenchavez, and by attorneys Barria and Binamira. The pleading prayed for approval of the withdrawal, sought a declaration that the compromise judgment dated May 24, 1967 be final and executory, and further asked that Atlas Consolidated Mining & Dev. Corp. et al. deposit P180,000.00 with the Court of First Instance of Cebu so that the related cases would thereafter be deemed settled, closed, and terminated.

The record reflected service of the pleading on Atlas through its attorney of record, and on attorneys and parties in interest, including Morales, Llanto, Mendoza, Quibranza, and others.

Comments Filed on the Withdrawal

On January 10, 1969, the Court required all parties concerned to comment on the withdrawal pleading within ten days from notice. Comments were then filed on various dates. Atlas filed a comment on January 28, 1969, praying that the compromise judgment be declared final and executory. Attorneys Mendoza and Quibranza filed a comment on February 14, 1969, stating that they found no ground to oppose the withdrawal of the opposition, provided that Atlas would deposit the P180,000 in the Court of First Instance of Cebu in Civil Case R-10051, described as I. B. Binamira et al. vs. Ernesto T. Morales et al.

Also, defendants-appellants Alfaro Pastor, Jr. and Efrain Pelaez filed a comment on February 17, 1969 stating they submitted the matter to the Court’s sound discretion based on the pleadings. Atty. Ernesto T. Morales filed a comment on February 20, 1969, indicating he had no objection to the withdrawal of opposition, but subject to certain conditions set forth in the record.

Ruling of the Court on the Withdrawal

After reviewing the comments, the Court observed that the parties concerned had no objection to the withdrawal of Tenchavez, Binamira, and Barria to the approval of the compromise agreement, and that certain conditions mentioned by some parties constituted no reason to disapprove the

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. L-26153)

Gualberto Tenchavez instituted this case as plaintiff-appellant and jointly with Atlas Consolidated Mining & Development Company filed a joint petition for judgment anchored on a compromise agreement.
Atlas Consolidated Mining & Development Co. and multiple named defendants and defendants and appellants were adverse parties to the plaintiff-appellant in the underlying proceedings.
The Supreme Court issued a resolution resolving motions connected to the approval and finality of the compromise agreement and the corresponding compromise judgment.

Compromise Agreement and Initial Approval

On April 14, 1967, plaintiff-appellant Gualberto Tenchavez and defendant-appellant Atlas Consolidated Mining and Development Company filed a joint petition for judgment in accordance with a compromise agreement attached to their petition.
The compromise agreement was presented “in the form of a public instrument” executed jointly by the petitioner parties.
On May 24, 1967, the Court approved the compromise agreement and rendered judgment pursuant thereto, ordering compliance with all terms and stipulations of the compromise.

Motions for Reconsideration Filed

On July 1, 1967, oppositors I. V. Binamira and F. B. Barria filed a motion for reconsideration of the Court’s May 24, 1967 decision.
The oppositors sought reconsideration of the approval of the compromise agreement and the dismissal of the appeal, and they also requested that their motion to record their attorneys lien be restored and resolved.
In the event of an adverse ruling, the oppositors asked for an order directing Atlas Consolidated Mining and Development Company to pay them the unpaid balance of P30,000 allegedly acknowledged “confidentially” in a letter dated April 19, 1967 to Tenchavez.
In a supplemental motion for reconsideration filed on July 9, 1967, Binamira and Barria 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.
The oppositors prayed that the Supreme Court hold in abeyance action on approval of the compromise agreement until Civil Case No. R-10051 would be finally resolved.

Court’s Requirement of Comments

On August 24, 1967, the Court issued a resolution requiring the adverse parties to comment within ten days from notice on the motions for reconsideration.
Ernesto T. Morales filed a manifestation and comment on September 5, 1967 praying that the motions for reconsideration be denied.
Atlas filed a comment on September 13, 1967, reiterating its prayer for approval of the compromise agreement.
Attys. Elias S. Mendoza and Domingo Quibranza, as oppositors, filed a comment on October 5, 1967 indicating that granting reconsideration and the supplemental motion would aid the Court in fairly resolving the incidents raised.
Oppositors Binamira and Barria filed additional observations on October 9, 1967 relating to the comments submitted by Atty. Morales and Atlas.
On October 19, 1967, Tenchavez filed a reply