ASIA'S EMERGING DRAGON CORPORATION, petitioner,

vs.
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
of action.
FACTS:
1. Two separate petitions for mandamus (rule #$) were filed before the %upreme &ourt concerning
the '()( )*T ))) *roject of which such project was awarded to *)(T&+.
. These two petitions were filed despite the promulgation by the %upreme &ourt of ,ecisions and
-esolutions in two cases:
a. (gan, .r. v. *hilippine )nternational (ir Terminals &o., )nc.;
i. RTC: &ivil &ase 'o. ##1! was dismissed because the parties entered into a
compom!"# a$##m#n%
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.
RULING:
)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
commenced.5
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.