• Rescinding agreement between parties in motorcycle accident

    Persida Acosta

    Persida Acosta

    Dear PAO,
    My brother was hit by a motorcycle on June 13, 2016. The police officers who conducted an investigation referred the parties to barangay (village) officials. My brother and the owner of the motorcycle signed a kasunduan (agreement) that the latter will shoulder the hospital expenses of my brother. He, however, only gave P5,000.00 to my brother, and said he cannot pay more than this. The agreement made on June 13, 2016 before the village officials was not favorable to my brother. What shall we do in order to repudiate it?

    Dear Fidel,
    Section 418 of the Local Government Code of the Philippines (Republic Act 7160) provides, “Any party to the dispute may, within ten (10) days from the date of the settlement, repudiate the same by filing with the lupon (council) chairman a statement to that effect sworn to before him, where the consent is vitiated by fraud, violence or intimidation. Such repudiation shall be sufficient basis for the issuance of the certification for filing a complaint as hereinabove provided.”

    Correlative to the above-mentioned provision of law is Section 416 of the same code that states, “The amicable settlement and arbitration award shall have the force and effect of a final judgment of a court upon the expiration of ten (10) days from the date thereof, unless repudiation of the settlement has been made or a petition to nullify the award has been filed before the proper city or municipal court.”

    In your brother’s case, he can repudiate the agreement before the barangay officials within ten (10) days from the time the same was entered, provided that his consent is vitiated by fraud, violence or intimidation. He has also the option either to enforce the kasunduan or insist upon his original demand pursuant to Article 2041 of the Civil Code of the Philippines.

    The Supreme Court said in Miguel vs Montanez(G. R. No. 191336, January 25, 2012):

    “As so well stated in the case of Chavez v. Court of Appeals, a party’s non-compliance with the amicable settlement paved the way for the application of Article 2041 under which the other party may either enforce the compromise, following the procedure laid out in the Revised Katarungang Pambarangay Law, or consider it as rescinded and insist upon his original demand. To quote:

    In the case at bar, the Revised Katarungang Pambarangay Law provides for a two-tiered mode of enforcement of an amicable settlement, to wit: (a) by execution by the Punong Barangay which is quasi-judicial and summary in nature on mere motion of the party entitled thereto; and (b) an action in regular form, which remedy is judicial. However, the mode of enforcement does not rule out the right of rescission under Art. 2041 of the Civil Code. The availability of the right of rescission is apparent from the wording of Sec. 417 itself, which provides that the amicable settlement “may” be enforced by execution by the lupon within six (6) months from its date or by action in the appropriate city or municipal court, if beyond that period. The use of the word “may” clearly makes the procedure provided in the Revised Katarungang Pambarangay Law directory or merely optional in nature.

    Again, we find it necessary to mention that this opinion is solely based on the facts you have narrated and our appreciation of the same. The opinion may vary when the facts are changed or elaborated.

    We hope that we were able to enlighten you on the matter.

    Editor’s note: Dear PAO is a daily column of the Public Attorney’s Office. Questions for Chief Acosta may be sent to dearpao@manilatimes.net


    Please follow our commenting guidelines.

    Comments are closed.