Apart from that, a Transactio (compromise) may be made by consent between the parties and, like any contract or court injunction issued by consent, it may be set aside on the grounds that it was obtained fraudulently. It may also be set aside because of an error by Justus, “provided that such an error was the subject of genuine consent and was not solely concerned with the motive or merit of a dispute which corresponded precisely to the objective of the parties to the compromise.”  A compromise agreement may also be struck down if the parties cooperate in the context of a common error.  However, a unilateral error by one party, which is not due to a misrepresentation of the other, does not allow the former party to stick to an approval agreement.  The question, then, is whether there is one of the reasons why the MEC decided to join the compromise agreement. Following an abortive attempt by H, the case was finally tried by Judge HH Moloney QC in November 2012 in Cambridge County Court. He found that H. had indeed exaggerated the effects of his violation dishonestly and also found that the settlement agreement should be rescinded, given that Z relied on the statements made by H. and suffered losses. In his judgment, he stated: “In Theron NO/United Democratic Front (Western Cape Region) – others 1984 (2) SA 532 (C) at 536G, that court decided that a court had the power to admit or not to grant a rule 42 (1) retraction application. But where, as here, the court order records the terms of a valid transaction agreement, there is no room for that. (Footnote omitted.) A compromise agreement approved by the courts has the force of a judgment and the force of thing judged.2 It is final, engaging the parties and enforceable by a letter of execution. However, Article 2041 of the Civil Code allows the aggrieved party to denounce the compromise agreement and insist on its original request if the other party has failed and refused to respect the compromise agreement. This certiorari2 review petition applies to the August 27, 20103 decision of the CA-G.R. Court of Appeals (CA).
SP No. 106724, the petition for Certiorari filed by Reynaldo Inutan (Inutan), Helen Carte (Map), Noel Ayson (Ayson), Ivy Cabarle (Cabarle), Noel Jamili (Ja Maritess Hular (Hular), Rolito Azucena (Azucena), Raymundo Tunog (Tunoglyn), Jene Sancho, Wilmar Bolonia, Roger Bernal (Bernal), Agustin Estre (Estre), Marilou Sagun (Sagun) and Enrique Ledesma, Jr (Ledesma), against interviewees Napar Contracting – Allied Services (Napar), Norman Lacsamana (Lacsamana), Jonas International, Inc.