4/30/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly terms of the Tripartite Agreement and, therefore, a deviation from our May 7, 1991 Decision and February 26, 1992 Resolution is an act of injustice. Spouses Ishwar specified in their motion the reprehensible acts of Choithram, among them: a) Patent violation of a clear compromise agreement burdensome to Ishwar Ramnani; b) In spite of Ishwar's generous concessions, Choithram repaid the favors with bad faith, delaying tactics and sinister moves intended to thwart him (Ishwar) from getting what is justly due him, resulting in extreme anxiety, considerable distress and needless expenses on his part; c) Filing fabricated charges with the BIR regarding Ishwar's alleged tax liabilities, all of them found without basis but only after causing the delayed settlement of what Choithram promised to pay under the compromise agreement; and d) Continued maneuver to delay or prevent the execution of this Court's Decision dated May 7, 1991 and February 26, 1992. In what spouses Ishwar call a "plea for simple justice," they now ask, "Should deceit and unscrupulous(ness) be rewarded?" It is elementary that nothing beneficial or lucrative should arise from subterfuge or deception. Bad faith has characterized the history of this case. It started with Choithram's violations of the trust agreement and has continued throughout the execution stage. Dilatory tactics, including a misleading report to the BIR, have resulted in non-implementation for ten (10) years of a final and executory Decision of this Court. Moreover, there have been late and faulty payments under a compromise agreement. We rule that under the above circumstances, the Choitram family should strictly comply with the terms of the compromise agreement in an expeditious manner. A compromise is defined in the Civil Code as: "Art. 2028. A compromise is a contract whereby the parties, by making reciprocal concessions, avoid a litigation or put an end to one already commenced." A compromise is intended to prevent or put an end to a lawsuit. The parties adjust their difficulties by mutual consent. Each of the parties prefers the terms of the compromise to their earlier hope of gaining, balanced by the danger of losing. It is intended to end litigation because of the uncertainty of its result. Prolonging a litigation is anathema to a compromise agreement. In this particular case, there is no longer any uncertainty over the result of litigation. https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/52364 6/9