METRO MANILA SHOPPING MECCA CORP., SHOEMART, INC., SM PRIME
HOLDINGS, INC., STAR APPLIANCES CENTER, SUPER VALUE, INC., ACE HARDWARE
PHILIPPINES, INC., HEAL TH AND BEAUTY, INC., JOLLIMART PHILS. CORP., and
SURPLUS MARKETING CORPORATION vs. MS. LIBERTY M. TOLEDO, in her official capacity as the City
Treasurer of Manila, and THE CITY OF MANILA, G.R. No. 190818, November 10, 2014
.
“x x x.
A compromise agreement is a contract whereby the parties, by
making reciprocal concessions, avoid a litigation or put an end to one already
commenced.8 It
contemplates mutual concessions and mutual gains to avoid the expenses of
litigation; or when litigation has already begun, to end it because of the
uncertainty of the result.9 Its
validity is dependent upon the fulfillment of the requisites and principles of
contracts dictated by law; and its terms and conditions must not be contrary to
law, morals, good customs, public policy, and public order.10 When
given judicial approval, a compromise agreement becomes more than a contract
binding upon the parties. Having been sanctioned by the court, it is entered as
a determination of a controversy and has the force and effect of a judgment. It
is immediately executory and not appealable, except for vices of consent or
forgery. The nonfulfillment of its terms and conditions justifies the issuance
of a writ of execution; in such an instance, execution becomes a ministerial
duty of the court.11
A review of the whereas clauses12 of
the UCA reveals the various court cases filed by petitioners, including this
case, for the refund and/or issuance of tax credit covering the local business
taxes payments they paid to respondent City of Manila pursuant to Section 21 of
the latter’s Revenue Code.13 Thus,
contrary to the submission of respondents, the local business taxes subject of
the instant case is clearly covered by the UCA since they were also paid in
accordance with the same provision of the Revenue Code of Manila.
In this relation, it is observed that the present case would have
been rendered moot and academic had the parties informed the Court of the UCA’s
supervening execution.14 Be
that as it may, and considering that: (a) the UCA appears to have been executed
in accordance with the requirements of a valid compromise agreement; (b) the
UCA was executed more than a year prior to the promulgation of the subject
Decision; and (c) the result of both the UCA and the subject Decision are
practically identical, i.e., that petitioners are not entitled to any tax
refund/credit, the Court herein resolves to approve and adopt the pertinent
terms and conditions of the UCA insofar as they govern the settlement of the
present dispute.
X x x.”
