ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[ G.R. No. 126745. January 26, 2000]

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JAN 26, 2000.

G.R. No. 126745 (Armed Forces of the Philippines Mutual Benefit Association vs. The Court of Appeals and EBR Realty.)

Before the Court is a Motion for Reconsideration from the decision rendered on 26 July 1999, which denied the Petition for Review on Certiorari filed by the Armed Forces of the Philippines Mutual Benefit Association, Inc. (AFPMBAI). In its resolution, dated 20 September 1999, the Court required private respondent EBR Realty, Inc. (EBRRI), to file its Comment. The latter complied. AFPMBAI filed its reply to EBRRI's comment and the latter, in turn, proffered its rejoinder.

Petitioner reiterates its argument that private respondent pursued a wrong recourse when it filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari instead of a Petition for Certiorari and faults this Court for having referred the case to the Court of Appeals in violation of the mandate that erroneous appeals shall be dismissed outrightly. Petitioner asseverates that private respondent should have filed a separate action to rescind the compromise agreement and not merely assail the same via a motion to set aside judgment, the denial of which would not be appealable under Section 41 of the 1997 Rules on Civil Procedure.

The foregoing arguments have all been raised and duly enucleated in the Court's decision. A disquisition over the same issues is an outright redundancy. Tautology aside, however, there is one point that needs to be underscored, i.e., that private respondent, although not a privy to the compromise agreement, is a party to the then pending action, along with petitioner, and should not therefore be precluded from invoking in the same proceedings an adequate relief from the prejudicial effects to it of such compromise.

One other point. The assailed judgment on compromise agreement was forged between petitioner and B. E. Ritz Mansion International Corporation prior to the effectivity1 01 July 1997. of Rule 41, Section 1, of the Rules on Civil Procedure. Verily, the adjective law theretofore in force, i.e., that a judgment based on compromise may be challenged via a motion to set aside judgment in the trial court and to appeal the order denying said motion, sanctioned the remedy taken by private respondent.

WHEREFORE, the petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration is denied for lack of merit. This denial is final.