ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[ G.R. No. 140052. October 11, 2000]

DOMINGA FRANCISCO, et al. vs. FERNANDO BAETIONG, et al.

FIRST DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated OCT 11 2000.

G.R. No. 140052 (Dominga Francisco, et al. vs. Fernando Baetiong, et al.)

On October 5, 1999, petitioners Dominga Francisco, et al. filed with this Court a motion for extension of time to file petition for review on certiorari of the decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. No. CV-31350. We granted the motion on October 27, 1999, with warning that no further extension will be given. Meanwhile, on October 25, 1999, petitioners filed a manifestation and motion stating that the parties have entered into a compromise agreement and praying that said compromise agreement be approved and that the assailed decision of the Court of Appeals be vacated and/or set aside. Respondent Spouses Fernando Baetiong and Gregoria Bustamante also filed a manifestation on October 28, 1999 terminating the services of Atty. Maria Virginia D. Bermudez-De Jesus as their counsel as they have already entered into an amicable settlement with petitioners. On November 24, 1999, we noted the manifestations of petitioners. On November 24, 1999, we noted the manifestation of petitioners and respondents. We also required Atty. Bermudez-De Jesus to comment on the manifestation of respondents terminating her services. In her comment, Atty. Bermudez-De Jesus alleged, among others, that the Court of Appeals rendered a decision favorable to respondents; that she lost touch with respondents after the Court of Appeals has rendered its decision; that respondents were not assisted by counsel when they executed the compromise agreement; that it is unbelievable that respondents would surrender all their rights of ownership over a 243 square meter lot for a meager sum of P3,227.00; that respondents could not have acceded to the agreement if they were only apprised that the decision of the Court of Appeals was favorable to them and if they were protected by a lawyer. Atty. Bermudez-De Jesus further prayed for the nullification of the compromise agreement as said agreement was executed without her consent on October 15, 1999, although her services were terminated only on October 26, 1999. Replying to Atty. Bermudez-De Jesus' comment, petitioners asserted that the compromise agreement was voluntarily executed between the parties. Respondents also filed their reply to the comment of Atty. Bermudez-De Jesus. They stated that they did not understand the true import of the document that they were made to sign; that petitioners told them that they have to accept the amount of P3,227.50 in compliance with the decision of Branch 172, Regional Trial Court of Valenzuela in Civil Case No. 1838-V-83; that they were not informed that a judgment in their favor was rendered by the Court of Appeals; that had they been informed, they would not have signed the documents submitted by petitioners to this Court.

In view of the foregoing allegations of the parties and the question as regards the validity of the compromise agreement purportedly entered into by petitioners and respondents, the Court resolves to REFER this case back to the Court of Appeals for proper disposition.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) VIRGINIA ANCHETA-SORIANO

Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE