THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 240018. July 7, 2021.]
MAGSAYSAY MARITIME CORPORATION, PRINCESS CRUISES LINES, LTD., AND MR. GARY M. CASTILLO, petitioners, vs.ENGELBERTO S. CARO, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedJuly 7, 2021, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 240018 (Magsaysay Maritime Corporation, Princess Cruises Lines, Ltd., and Mr. Gary M. Castillo v. Engelberto S. Caro). — The instant case stemmed from the complaint filed by Engelberto S. Caro (respondent) against Magsaysay Maritime Corporation, Princess Cruises Lines, Ltd., and Mr. Gary M. Castillo (collectively, petitioners) for payment of permanent disability benefits, damages, and attorney's fees. 1
In the Decision 2 dated May 28, 2013, the Labor Arbiter (LA) ruled in favor of the respondent and ordered the petitioners to pay him a Grade 12 disability benefit amounting to US$5,225.00 or its Philippine Peso equivalent. 3 Dissatisfied, the respondent appealed before the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC).
In the Decision 4 dated October 23, 2013, the NLRC granted the appeal and modified the LA Decision in that, it awarded the respondent a Grade 1, not Grade 12, disability benefit, plus attorney's fees. The petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration 5 dated November 13, 2013, but the NLRC denied the motion in the Resolution 6 dated January 27, 2014. When the petitioners filed a Motion for Clarification 7 dated February 11, 2014, the NLRC subsequently issued a Resolution 8 dated March 24, 2014 wherein it reversed its earlier ruling, granted the petitioners' Motion for Reconsideration, and reinstated the LA Decision.
When the case was elevated to the Court of Appeals (CA), the CA set aside the NLRC Resolution dated March 24, 2014 and held that the petitioners are solidarily liable to pay respondent total and permanent disability benefits in the amount of US$60,000.00 or its Philippine Peso equivalent, plus 10% thereof as attorney's fees. 9
Undaunted, the petitioners elevated the case to the Court via a Petition for Review on Certiorari10 under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
On September 19, 2019, the parties filed a Joint Manifestation 11 stating, among others, that the respondent executed a Release of All Rights 12 in favor of the petitioners in exchange for the amount of P3,507,407.48. The payment was made by means of CITIBANK Check No. 0000108006 13 dated September 18, 2019 issued by Del Rosario & Del Rosario to respondent. CAacTH
The Joint Manifestation was duly signed by the respondent and his counsel, Atty. Frederick M. Linsangan. 14 The parties also submitted a Satisfaction of Judgment 15 dated September 19, 2019, wherein the respondent acknowledged receipt of the amount P3,507,407.48 as complete settlement of all his claims stating "[t]hat by virtue of said payment [he] has no further claim against [petitioners]."16 The following documents also supported the parties' Joint Manifestation: (1) Release of All Rights; 17 (2) Pagpapaubaya ng Lahat ng Karapatan; 18 and (3) Affidavit of Claimant. 19
The respondent and the petitioners pray that their Joint Manifestation with annexes be noted and made part of the records of the case, and that the case be dismissed and considered closed and terminated. 20
It is well settled that a compromise agreement entered into by party-litigants, such as the Joint Manifestation in this case, when not contrary to law, public order, public policy, morals, or good custom is a valid contract which is considered the law between the parties themselves. 21 "It follows, therefore, that a compromise agreement, not tainted with infirmity, irregularity, fraud, or illegality is the law between the parties who are duty bound to abide by it and observe strictly its terms and conditions." 22
WHEREFORE, the Joint Manifestation is NOTED. The instant petition is hereby DISMISSED, and the case is deemed CLOSED and TERMINATED.
SO ORDERED." (ROSARIO, J., designated as Additional Member per Special Order No. 2833 dated June 29, 2021.).
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) MISAEL DOMINGO C. BATTUNG IIIDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 509-510.
2.Id. at 113-119; penned by Executive Labor Arbiter Fatima Jambaro-Franco.
3.Id. at 119.
4.Id. at 362-369; penned by Presiding Commissioner Joseph Gerard E. Mabilog with Commissioners Isabel G. Panganiban-Ortiguerra and Nieves E. Vivar-De Castro, concurring.
5.Id. at 370-378.
6.Id. at 380-382.
7.Id. at 383-386.
8.Id. at 110-112.
9.Id. at 25.
10.Id. at 30-61.
11.Id. at 600-601.
12.Id. at 604-607.
13.Id. at 614.
14.Id. at 601.
15.Id. at 602-603.
16.Id. at 602.
17.Id. at 604-607.
18.Id. at 608-611.
19.Id. at 612-613.
20.Id. at 600.
21.Esguerra v. CA, 335 Phil. 58, 69 (1997).
22.Id.