ADR mid terms Part 5

Question 1

FACT of Uy vs. Chua, G.R. 183965

Answer 1

Joanie Uy and Alan were the alleged illegitimate children of Jose Chua who denies illegitimate relationship with their mother Irene. Joanie Uy filed a Petition for the issuance of a decree of illegitimate filiation against Jose. Jose filed a Demurrer to Evidence on the ground that the Decision dated 21 February 2000 of RTC-Branch 9 in Special Proceeding No. 8830-CEB had already been barred by res judicata and that Joanie and Him already made Compromise Agreement declaring that there is no blood relationship or filiation between petitioner and her brother Allan.

Question 2

ISSUE of Uy vs. Chua, G.R. 183965

Answer 2

whether or not the Compromise Agreement constitutes res judicata.

Question 3

RULING of Uy vs. Chua, G.R. 183965

Answer 3

No. Any compromise agreement that is contrary to law or public policy is null and void, and vests no rights in and holds no obligation for any party. It produces no legal effect at all. SEE CC, ART 2035 (cannot be compromised)

Question 4

ADR v. Litigation

Answer 4

Arbitration means a voluntary ADR process, wherein an arbitrator resolves dispute by issuing award. Litigation is a lawsuit or legal action including all proceedings therein.

Question 5

Facts of RCBC v. Magwin Marketing

Answer 5


VOLUNTARY PROCESS:
RCBC filed a complaint for recovery of sum of money with preliminary attachment against respondents Marwin Marketing Corporation.
Thereafter, discussions between the petitioner and respondents were undertaken to restructure the indebtedness of respondents. Subsequently a debt payment scheme was approved by the petitioner. However, the trial court, on its own initiative issued an Order dismissing the case without prejudice for failure of the petitioner to prosecute its action for unreasonable length of time. Petitioner moved for reconsideration of the said order by informing the trial court of respondent’s desire to settle amicably through a loan restructuring program. As a result, the trial court reconsidered petitioner’s contention and issued another Order which directed the parties to submit within 15 days a compromise agreement otherwise shall cause the imposition of payment of the required docket fees for re-filing the said case.

Question 6

Interim Guidelines for Implementing Mediation in the Court of Tax Appeals

Answer 6

UA.M. No. n-1-5-SC-PHILJA

Question 7

PHILJA

Answer 7

Philippine Judicial Academy

Question 8

DHSUD

Answer 8

Department of Human Settlements and Urban Development

Question 9

Authority of the Commissioner to CARC: Compromise. Abate, Refund, or Credit Taxes

Answer 9

National Internal Revenue Code, Section 204