This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND COMMUNICATIONS, SECRETARY LEANDRO R.
MENDOZA and MANILA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY, respondents.
DOCTRINE: The elements of res judicata, in its concept as a bar by former judgment, are as follows:
(1) the former judgment or order must be final;
() it must be a judgment or order on the merits, that is, it was rendered after a consideration of the
evidence or stipulations submitted by the parties at the trial of the case;
(!) it must have been rendered by a court having jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties; and
(") there must be, between the first and second actions, identity of parties, of subject matter and of cause
1. Two separate petitions for mandamus (rule #$) were filed before the %upreme &ourt concerning
the '()( )*T ))) *roject of which such project was awarded to *)(T&+.
. These two petitions were filed despite the promulgation by the %upreme &ourt of ,ecisions and
-esolutions in two cases:
a. (gan, .r. v. *hilippine )nternational (ir Terminals &o., )nc.;
i. RTC: &ivil &ase 'o. ##1! was dismissed because the parties entered into a
b. -epublic v. /ingoyon
ISSUE: 0hether the compromise agreement1amicable settlement has an effect of -2% .3,)&(T(
HELD: 42%. (ll of the elements are present herein so as to bar the present *etition. %ee ,octrine.
)t is undisputable that the parties entered into a compromise agreement, defined as 5a contract whereby
the parties, by ma6ing reciprocal concessions, avoid a litigation or put an end to one already
2ssentially, it is a contract perfected by mere consent, the latter being manifested by the meeting of the
offer and the acceptance upon the thing and the cause which are to constitute the contract. +nce an
agreement is stamped with judicial approval, it becomes more than a mere contract binding upon the
parties; having the sanction of the court and entered as its determination of the controversy, it has the
force and effect of any other judgment. A%!c&# '()* o+ %,# C!-!& Cod# #.p&!c!%&/ po-!d#" %,a% a
compom!"# ,a" 0pon %,# pa%!#" %,# #++#c% and a0%,o!%/ o+ #" 10d!ca%a.
There is an !d#n%!%/ o+ pa%!#". )n both petitions, the (2,& is the petitioner. The respondents in &ivil
&ase 'o. ##1! are the ,+T& %ecretary and the *7(& &hairman and members. The respondents in the
instant *etition are the ,+T&, the ,+T& %ecretary, and the 8anila )nternational (irport (uthority (8)(().
0hile it may be conceded that 8)(( was not a respondent and did not participate in &ivil &ase 'o.
##1!, it may be considered a successor9in9interest of the *7(&. 0hen &ivil &ase 'o. ##1! was
initiated, *7(& was then in charge of the '()( )*T ))) *roject, and had the authority to evaluate the bids
and award the project to the one offering the lowest or most advantageous bid. %ince the bidding is
already over, and the structures comprising '()( )*T ))) are now built, then 8)(( has ta6en charge
thereof. :urthermore, it is clear that it has been the intention of the (2,& to name as respondents in their
two *etitions the government agency1ies and official1s who, at the moment each *etition was filed, had
authority over the '()( )*T ))) *roject.
There is an !d#n%!%/ o+ "021#c% ma%%# because the two *etitions involve none other than the award and
implementation of the '()( )*T ))) *roject.
There is an !d#n%!%/ o+ ca0"# o+ ac%!on because, in both *etitions, (2,& is asserting the violation of its
right to the award of the '()( )*T ))) *roject as the original proponent in the absence of any other
;ualified bidders. (s early as in &ivil &ase 'o. ##1!, (2,& already sought a declaration by the court of
the absence of any other ;ualified proponent submitting a competitive bid for the '()( )*T ))) *roject,
which, ultimately, would result in the award of the said project to it.