The Board of Regents of the Nueva Ecija University of Science and Technology v. Cortez

THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. 213626. September 2, 2015.]

THE BOARD OF REGENTS OF THE NUEVA ECIJA UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, ATTY. HILARIO C. ORTIZ, ANGEL A. PANGILINAN, ATTY. BENER O. BAUTO, JUVENAL C. YABUT, EDEN ENRILE AND ERIC CLAUDIO,petitioners, vs. DR. ANGELICA O. CORTEZ,respondent.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated September 2, 2015, which reads as follows:

G.R. No. 213626 (The Board of Regents of the Nueva Ecija University of Science and Technology, Atty. Hilario C. Ortiz, Angel A. Pangilinan, Atty. Bener O. Bauto, Juvenal C. Yabut, Eden Enrile and Eric Claudio v. Dr. Angelica O. Cortez). — This resolves the petition praying that the Decision 1 of the Court of Appeals (CA), dated September 17, 2013, and the Resolution 2 dated July 22, 2014 denying motions for reconsideration thereof, be annulled and set aside.

The antecedent facts of this case are as follows.

Petitioner Board of Regents of the Nueva Ecija University of Science and Technology (NEUST) is the governing body administering and exercising the corporate powers of the NEUST. The rest of the petitioners are either member of said Board of Regents, or officers and faculty of NEUST. Respondent Dr. Angelica O. Cortez (Cortez) is a college professor at the NEUST.

Cortez filed a petition for mandamus, prohibition and damages against petitioners and other officials of the NEUST, alleging that the latter began to harass and treat her oppressively when she refused to give in to several NEUST officials/professors' demands that she change the grade of one of her students from "failed" to "incomplete." The harassment took the form of blocking the release of her salary; transferring her from the NEUST College of Education to the NEUST Research and Development Department and then later, to the College of Health Sciences; and suppressing her right to freedom of association when she was forced to resign her post as Treasurer of the Philippine Association of Campus Student Advisers.

On September 9, 2010, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) issued a Decision, the dispositive portion of which reads as follows:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered:

1. Ordering the respondents [herein petitioners] to return petitioner [herein respondent] Dr. Angelica O. Cortez from her current assignment at the NEUST Fort Magsaysay Campus, Palayan City to her original assignment at the NEUST College of Education without any loss of seniority rights giving her subject loads substantially similar to the ones she previously held;

2. Ordering respondents Atty. Hilario C. Ortiz, Dr. Carlito S. Puno, Atty. Bener O. Bauto, Dr. Juanaria M. Aquino, Dr. Angel A. Pangilinan and Mr. Juvenal Yabut to pay the petitioner, jointly and severally, the amount of Twenty Thousand (Php20,000.00) Pesos as attorney's fees and the amount of Ten Thousand (Php10,000.00) Pesos as litigation expenses; and

3. Denying petitioner's claim for moral and exemplary damages.

SO ORDERED.3

Herein petitioners appealed to the CA and, on September 17, 2013, it promulgated a Decision, the dispositive portion of which is set forth below:

The Decision dated 09 September 2010 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 24, Cabanatuan City in Civil Case Number 5331-AF, is SET ASIDE. We rule as follows: 1) appellant Cortez is ORDERED returned to her assignment at the NEUST Fort Magsaysay Campus, Palayan City, without prejudice to the filing of the appropriate case before the CSC; 2) appellant Cortez's claims for moral and exemplary damages are DENIED; 3) respondents-appellants Atty. Hilario C. Ortiz, Dr. Carlito S. Puno, The Board of Regents NEUST; Atty. Bener O. Bauto, Dr. Juanaria M. Aquino, Special Investigating Committee, Dr. Emelita F. Gonzales, Dr. Cirilo S. Bulandan, Jr., Mr. Leon M. Torres and Ms. Monina G. Cruz are ORDERED to pay appellant Cortez, jointly and severally, the following sums: a) P20,000.00 (as attorney's fees); b) P10,000.00 (as litigation expenses).

IT IS SO ORDERED. 4

Petitioners then elevated the case to this Court. However, before the petition could be resolved, a Joint Manifestation with Motion was filed, alleging that all parties have amicably settled their claims based on the stipulations contained in their Compromise Agreement. The parties submitted their Compromise Agreement, dated July 30, 2015, pertinent portions of which read as follows:

WITNESSETH

WHEREAS, after discussion and consultation between and among the FIRST PARTY [Cortez] and the SECOND PARTY [Petitioners], both have agreed to amicably settle the FIRST PARTY's claims against the SECOND PARTY under the terms and conditions which they find acceptable to their mutual satisfaction to wit:

1. Following the rationalization of Nueva Ecija University of Science and Technology's (NEUST) various campuses, the SECOND PARTY will facilitate the immediate re-assignment of the FIRST PARTY to its General Tinio Campus, the same is in consonance with the mission and vision of the University to maximize the use of qualified personnel to extend and provide the best education to its studentry;

2. The FIRST PARTY will facilitate the dismissal of all the cases filed and/or pending against the SECOND PARTY, in a joint motion with the latter;

3. That the petitioner is hereby reinstated in the previous assignment and position at the College of Education, Nueva Ecija University of Science and Technology, Sumacab Campus, Cabanatuan City immediately upon approval of this compromise agreement;

4. That both parties understood that, further cases, suits, claims or counterclaims of any nature that may arise out of this matter shall forever be waived and abandoned.

NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of these premises and of the mutual covenants and stipulations hereinafter set forth, the FIRST and SECOND PARTY hereby agree to amicably settle, as they hereby settle, their respective claims.

That the PARTIES acknowledge that the instant amicable settlement is neither a confession nor an admission of liability or fault on their respective part, but to buy peace, maintain goodwill and camaraderie within the University and in furtherance of public service.

That the instant amicable settlement shall bind all the heirs, assigns, and successors-in-interest of both parties.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have hereunto set their hands in Cabanatuan City on this 30th day of July, 2015. 5

The parties stated in their Joint Motion that they have decided to amicably settle their respective claims. They likewise pray that the case be terminated and the Compromise Agreement be adopted as the judgment of the Court.

The Court has 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." 6 In Rañola v. Rañola, 7 the Court even lauded such an agreement, stating that "[i]t is an accepted, even desirable and encouraged, practice in courts of law and administrative tribunals." 8

A close reading of the aforequoted Compromise Agreement would show 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 Manifestation with Motion is GRANTED. The Compromise Agreement dated July 30, 2015 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. (Reyes, J., on official leave; Leonen, J., Acting Member per Special Order No. 2084-F dated September 1, 2015; Jardeleza, J., no part; Perez, J., Additional Member, per Raffle dated September 8, 2014)

SO ORDERED."

Very truly yours,

 

(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court

Footnotes

1. Penned by Associate Justice Nina G. Antonio-Valenzuela, with Associate Justices Isaias P. Dicdican and Michael P. Elbinias, concurring.

2. Id.

3. Rollo, p. 140. (Emphasis in the original)

4. Id. at 62. (Emphasis in the original)

5. Id. at 212-213.

6. Gaisano v. Akol, 667 Phil. 512, 514 (2011).

7. 612 Phil. 307 (2009).

8. Ranola v. Ranola, supra, at 312.