Like any contract a compromise settlement of a case is perfected upon the meeting of the minds between the parties pertaining to the subject matter and the cause or consideration for the settlement. This is illustrated in this case of Hilda.
Sometime in January 1993 Hilda engaged the services of Pete, a geodetic engineer, to conduct a relocation, consolidation and subdivision survey of her properties as well as the properties her sister. In the course of conducting his work, Pete asked Hilda and her husband to sign a document which was supposedly needed to facilitate the consolidation-subdivision and issuance of separate certificates of title over the properties.
After completing his work, Pete was paid P4,050.00 for his services. But he failed to return the certificates of title of the said properties for more than one year despite repeated demands to return them. Later on, Hilda and her husband learned that Pete had already sold their lot when a truck loaded with construction materials came to their land. They further discovered that Pete made it appear that she had sold the lot to him for P80,000 and had her certificates of title cancelled and transferred to him using the document that he caused her and her husband to sign.
When confronted, Pete told Hilda that he had already sold the lot, He then tried to convince Hilda to accept P400,000, later increased to P500,000 as purchase price of the lot. On May 3, 1994, thinking that she could no longer recover her property, Hilda agreed to accept the P500,000 from Pete but only as partial payment because the lot had a fair market value of P1,338,000. Hilda was made to sign an acknowledgment receipt and other documents where it was made to appear that she received the full and final payment for the lot.
Hilda then asked for the payment of the fair market value of her property but to no avail. So the dispute was referred to the Punong Barangay and the Lupong Tagapaymaya. During the conciliation proceedings on June 8, 1994, the parties agreed that Pete will pay an additional amount of P75,000 to the initial P500,000 he already paid to Hilda. But Pete had P70,000 only so he gave the said amount to Hilda who acknowledge receipt of the same as attested by the Lupon Chairman.
The next day, Pete tendered the remaining P5,000 to Hilda to compete the amicable settlement. But Hilda refused to accept saying that P5,000 was not enough. She insisted that the case be elevated to the court. After a certification to file action was issued by the Lupon, Hilda filed a complaint in the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) insisting on the non-perfection of the amicable settlement since there was allegedly no meeting of the minds yet between them on the subject matter and the cause thereof. In answer, Pete asked for the dismissal of the complaint considering that he had already been released from any obligation and that what remains to be done is merely the completion of the amicable settlement between them.
The MTC granted Pete’s motion and thus dismissed Hilda’s complaint. Was the MTC correct?
Yes. Admittedly, both parties agreed during the barangay conciliation proceedings for Pete to pay and additional sum of P75,000 (which was the object or subject matter of the amicable settlement) to the initial P500,000 Pete had earlier given to Hilda as purchase price of the lot in order to put an end to their dispute (which was the cause or reason of the settlement). Hilda expressly acknowledged that Pete’s offer to pay additional P75,000 was made in order for her to desist from pursuing her case against him. By reason of her unconditional acceptance of the offer and the P70,000 initially tendered to her, Hilda had already effectively waived whatever claims she might have against Pete regarding said lot.
Thus there was already a meeting of the minds between them and a compromise agreement or contract has been perfected where they agreed to avoid litigation or put an end to one already commenced, by making reciprocal concessions. A compromise is a form of amicable settlement that is not only allowed but encouraged in civil cases (Harold vs. Aliba, G.R. 130864, October 2, 2007).
Note: Books containing compilation of my articles on Labor Law and Criminal Law (Vols. I and II) are now available. Call Tel. 7249445.
* * *
E-mail at: jcson@pldtdsl.net