Leny Development Corp. v. Development Bank of the Philippines

THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. 188490. June 10, 2013.]

LENY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, ET AL., respondent.

[G.R. No. 188617. June 10, 2013.]

DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner,vs. LENY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, respondent.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated June 10, 2013, which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 188490 (Leny Development Corporation v. Development Bank of the Philippines, et al.) and G.R. No. 188617 (Development Bank of the Philippines v. Leny Development Corporation). — This resolves the respective petitions of Leny Development Corporation (hereinafter Leny) and Development Bank of the Philippines (hereinafter DBP), praying that the Decision 1 of the Court of Appeals (CA), dated December 12, 2008 and the Resolution 2 dated June 10, 2009 denying both parties' respective motions for reconsideration thereof, be annulled and set aside.

The antecedent facts of this case are as follows. HcACTE

Leny obtained a loan from DBP and as security therefor, the former mortgaged three parcels of land. Leny, however, failed to pay said loan and, on June 25, 2001, a Notice of Extrajudicial Foreclosure was issued by the Office of the Provincial Sheriff of Capiz. Said public auction was postponed since Leny updated its obligations with DBP. Thereafter, Leny again failed to service the succeeding monthly interests, thus, on May 2, 2002, the Office of the Provincial Sheriff of Capiz issued another Notice of Extrajudicial Foreclosure, scheduling the public auction for June 6, 2002.

On June 4, 2002, Leny filed with the Regional Trial Court of Roxas City (RTC), a petition for prohibition, determination of its true account, annulment of charges for attorney's fees and penalties, with prayer for injunctive relief. After trial, the RTC issued a Decision, the dispositive portion of which reads as follows:

WHEREFORE, the petition is dismissed.

The counterclaim and all other claims are likewise dismissed.

Costs to petitioner.

SO ORDERED. 3

Leny appealed to the CA and, on December 12, 2008, the CA promulgated a Decision, the dispositive portion of which is set forth below:

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the instant appeal is PARTLY GRANTED. The Decision of the Regional Trial Court, dated January 24, 2007, is hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATIONS, to wit:

1. that the penalty charges are hereby reduced to 12% per annum;

2. that the attorney's fees is hereby reduced and fixed at P500,000.00; and TDCAHE

3. that DBP is hereby ordered to reimburse petitioner the excess in the bid price in that amount of P4,508,084.00 which is the difference between the total amount due to DBP and the amount of its bid price, with interests of 6% per annum from the date of the auction sale of the subject properties on November 7, 2002 until the finality of herein Decision, the amount of which, inclusive [of] the interests, is subject to 12% per annum interest until fully paid.

SO ORDERED. 4

Both Leny and DBP filed their respective petitions for review on certiorari which were then consolidated by the Court. However, before this Court could resolve the petitions, Leny and DBP filed a Joint Motion for Judgment Based on Compromise Agreement dated January 25, 2011. The parties submitted their Compromise Agreement dated December 21, 2010, pertinent portions of which read as follows:

COMPROMISE AGREEMENT

xxx xxx xxx

WHEREAS, this Compromise Agreement shall be applicable to all cases involving the parties hereto, including but not limited to the following cases pending in the Supreme Court, to wit:

a. Leny Development Corporation vs. Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP) and the Ex-Officio Provincial Sheriff of the Province of Capiz (G.R. No. 188490) and

b. Development Bank of the Philippines vs. Leny Development Corporation, (G.R. No. 188617).

WHEREAS, the object of the controversy in both cases, specifically the following real properties, to wit: ESacHC

1. Lot No. 2 covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-44872;

2. Lot No. 7-C covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-44873; and

3. Lot No. 7-B covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-44874

have been sold, transferred and conveyed to a third person with the consent and conformity of both parties;

WHEREAS, both parties have sold, transferred, conveyed, waived, abandoned, and surrendered all their respective rights, interests, and participations in and over the aforementioned parcels of land and the improvements thereon in favor of EAST CLERMONT CORPORATION with the consent and conformity of the parties;

NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the foregoing premises and the mutual covenants and stipulations herein set forth, the parties have agreed as follows: DTESIA

1. All parties hereto hereby voluntarily and willingly agree that they, their successors-in-interest, and assigns, shall be bound by the terms and conditions of this Compromise Agreement;

2. Both parties hereby expressly and unconditionally waive, surrender, and abandon all claims, rights, interest, and causes of action against each other, including any and all claims for damages, attorney's fees and other money claims of whatever kind and nature, particularly any claim that may arise from the complaint filed by Leny Development Corporation in Civil Case No. V-051-06-2002 and the decisions emanating therefrom, specifically in the Decision rendered by the Court of Appeals, dated December 12, 2008 in CA-G.R. SP No. 02734;

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties, assisted by their respective counsel, have hereunto set their hands on this _____ day ______ on the dates and places mentioned in the respective acknowledgments.

DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES		LENY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
Represented by:		Represented by:
(Signed)		(Signed)
LOURDES ANNE E. LIAO		GERONIMO B. BERMEJO
Senior Assistant Vice President
(Signed)		(Signed)
ATTY. ORLANDA BIGCAS-LUMUWAG		ATTY. STEPHEN C. ARCEÑO
Counsel for DBP		Counsel for Leny Devt. Corp.
San Jose St., Roxas City		Magallanes St., Roxas City
Roll No. 25730		Admitted: March 15, 1971
Admitted: June 9, 1975		P.T.R. No. 07167226
IBP No. 772230		January 12, 2010
Roxas City, Dec. 2, 2009		IBP No. 80221001
P.T.R. No. 0691348		Roxas City Jan. 5, 2010
Roxas City, Jan. 7, 2010		MCLE II-0009517
MCLE Compliance No. II-0006504Feb. 2009		Issued on the 19th day ofÂ
MCLE Compliance No. III-0004027 5

The parties stated in their Joint Motion that they have decided to end all litigation between them and amicably settle their respective claims. They, likewise, pray that the Court render judgment approving the Compromise Agreement dated December 21, 2010 and adopting the same as the judgment of the Court. HIAEaC

In Gaisano v. Akol, 6 the Court defined a compromise agreement as a contract whereby the parties make reciprocal concessions, avoid litigation, or put an end to one already commenced. Its validity depends on its fulfillment of the requisites and principles of contracts dictated by law; its terms and conditions being not contrary to law, morals, good customs, public policy and public order.

A close reading of the aforequoted Compromise Agreement shows the same to be sanctioned under Article 2028 of the Civil Code, its terms and conditions not being contrary to law, morals, good customs, public policy and public order. Hence, the Court finds nothing objectionable with the same.

WHEREFORE, the Joint Motion for Judgment Based on Compromise Agreement is GRANTED. The Compromise Agreement dated December 21, 2010 is hereby APPROVED and ADOPTED as the judgment in this case. Herein parties are ORDERED to strictly and faithfully comply with said Compromise Agreement. This case is now deemed TERMINATED.

No pronouncement as to costs.

SO ORDERED."

Very truly yours,

(SGD.) LUCITA ABJELINA SORIANODivision Clerk of Court

By:

WILFREDO V. LAPITANDeputy Division Clerk of Court

 

Footnotes

1.Penned by Associate Justice Francisco P. Acosta, with Associate Justices Amy C. Lazaro-Javier and Rodil V. Zalameda, concurring.

2.Id.

3.Rollo, G.R. No. 188490, p. 78. (Emphasis in the original)

4.Id. at 63.

5.Id. at 156-157.

6.G.R. No. 193840, June 15, 2011, 652 SCRA 378, 381.