Scribd
Upload
60 views1 page

Issue: W/N Garcia's Subsequent Compromise With Bartina Proves His Liability For The Obligation NO

This document summarizes several Philippine Supreme Court cases. It discusses one case in particular, Servicewide Specialists, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, which involved a complaint of replevin filed by Servicewide against the Tolosa spouses for failure to pay installments on a jeepney. Servicewide later amended its complaint to include Garcia, who the Tolosa spouses had allegedly sold the jeepney to without Servicewide's consent. The court addressed whether Garcia's compromise with Bartina, who claimed to have purchased the jeepney from Garcia, constituted an admission of liability on Garcia's part. The court determined that a compromise is not an admission of liability, as the

Uploaded by

Julrey Garcia
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
60 views1 page

Issue: W/N Garcia's Subsequent Compromise With Bartina Proves His Liability For The Obligation NO

This document summarizes several Philippine Supreme Court cases. It discusses one case in particular, Servicewide Specialists, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, which involved a complaint of replevin filed by Servicewide against the Tolosa spouses for failure to pay installments on a jeepney. Servicewide later amended its complaint to include Garcia, who the Tolosa spouses had allegedly sold the jeepney to without Servicewide's consent. The court addressed whether Garcia's compromise with Bartina, who claimed to have purchased the jeepney from Garcia, constituted an admission of liability on Garcia's part. The court determined that a compromise is not an admission of liability, as the

Uploaded by

Julrey Garcia
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

Servicewide Specialists, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.

117728, June 26, 1996


FGU Insurance Corp. v. G.P. Sarmiento Trucking Corp., G.R. No. 141910, August 6, 2002
People v. Cachuela, G.R. No. 191752, June 10, 2013
People v. Roa, G.R. Nos. 138195-96, July 10, 2003
People v. Omilig y Mancia, G.R. No. 206296, August 12, 2015
Mclaughlin v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-57552, October 10, 1986
Lazaro v. Agustin, G.R. No. 152364, April 15, 2010
DBP Pool of Accredited Insurance Co. v. Radio Mindanao Network, Inc., G.R. No. 147039,
January 27, 2006
Land Bank of the Phils. v. Monet's Export and Manufacturing Corp., G.R. No. 184971, April 19,
2010
Ambray, et al., v. Tsourous, et al., G.R. No. 209264, July 5, 2016

Servicewide filed a complaint for replevin and/or sum of money with damages against Tolosa spouses
alleging that spouses Tolosa failed to pay the installments due on the purchase price of Isuzu passenger-type
jeepney despite several demands.
Later on, Servicewide amended its complaint and included Garcia as defendant alleging that the Tolosa
spouses, without Servicewide's knowledge and consent, executed and delivered to Eduardo Garcia a "Deed of Sale
with Assumption of Mortgage" over the jeepney sought to be recovered.
The sheriff seized the subject vehicle from the possession of one Lourdes Bartina.
Bartina filed a complaint-in-intervention claiming that the vehicle subject of the complaint was sold to her by
Biñan Motors owned by Eduardo Garcia and that the vehicle was in her possession when it was seized by the
sheriff and thereafter turned over to Servicewide.
Later, Bartina and Garcia and Biñan Motors, with the assistance of their respective counsels, moved to
dismiss the complaint-in-intervention. They alleged that they had "arrived at an amicable settlement of their claims”.
The court granted the motion
The decision was rendered by the trial court and included Garcia liable to Servicewide.

ISSUE:
W/N Garcia’s subsequent compromise with Bartina proves his liability for the obligation

NO. The compromise between Bartina and Garcia and Binan Motors cannot be taken as an admission of
Garcia's liability. In civil cases, an offer of compromise is not an admission of any liability. With more
reason, a compromise agreement should not be treated as an admission of liability on the part of the
parties vis-a-vis a third person. The compromise settlement of a claim or cause of action is not an
admission that the claim is valid, but merely admits that there is a dispute, and that an amount is paid to
be rid of the controversy, nor is a compromise with one person an admission of any liability to someone
else. The policy of the law should be, and is, to encourage compromises. When they are made, the rights
of third parties are not in any way affected thereby.
(In the "Answer to the Complaint in Intervention," Garcia and Bian Motors admitted that they acquired from
the Tolosas the "vehicle subject of the complaint in consideration of one Celeste jeepney valued at P56,000.00." The
vehicle subject of the complaint was the one found in the possession of Bartina. Under the two pleadings, however,
what Garcia and Biñan Motors sold to the Tolosa spouses was a different vehicle from the one they acquired
from said spouses and which they allegedly sold to Bartina.)

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy