Meanwhile, december 18, 2003; [the peasants] executed an irrevocable power in favour of Mariano Nocom (Nocom) and allowed him, among other things, to comply with our decision of 19 January 2005 by paying the withdrawal price to Springsun and/or the court. [The farmers] however challenged the power of attorney in a revocation action with the RTC. In a summary judgment, the RTC struck down the irrevocable power of attorney for violation of law and order. The RTC explained that the power of attorney was a disguised transfer of the right to collect, which is prohibited by Republican Law 3844. The Board upheld the RTC`s decision. However, in G.R. No. 182984, the Court set aside the certification body`s decision and found that the RTC had made a misstep in the summary judgment. The Court therefore put the case at fault before the RTC for a formal procedure and a formal order, on the basis of a formal dispute and not by a summary judgment. On the basis of section 17 of the Constitution, the applicant referred to the Tribunal and requested that the defendant not file a bankruptcy warning and a bankruptcy application on the basis of a contentious claim for late interest. The Court of Appeal closed the proceedings with a judgment and found that the applicant`s claims could not be considered claims to remove a civil offence and prevent further violations.
The Court of Appeal also found that the application was contrary to the Constitution of Article 15. The Supreme Court set aside the Court of Appeal`s decision and held that it was essentially possible to violate a person`s civil rights by filing an unfounded bankruptcy warning and bankruptcy application in a civil relationship, and that applications to quash offences and other violations should be reconsidered through civil proceedings. The Supreme Court therefore held that the exercise of constitutional rights by one person could result in an abuse of the law and a violation of another person`s right, which is why the state must fulfil its duty of protection and, in the event of a violation, the court must find a judicial remedy to end the violation. The filing of an appeal does not limit the parties` ability to enter into compromise or transaction agreements, unless such agreements are contrary to law, morality, good practice or public policy. However, Article 2935 of the Civil Code of the Philippines provides that no compromise is valid on the following issues: But to Uy vs. Jose Chua (GR 183965, On September 18, 2009, the Supreme Court stressed that a compromise agreement, like all other treaties, must not only meet the requirements of an ordinary treaty under section 1318 of the Civil Code, but also not to break the law, so that there is no justification for prohibiting a compromise agreement simply because it was reached as a result of a legal judgment. The validity of the agreement depends on compliance with the requirements and principles of the contracts, not on the date of the contract. As required by the Contracts Act, a valid compromise must contain the following: (1) the approval of the parties to the compromise; 2) an object that is the subject of compromise; and (3) the cause of the commitment.  Article 2035 of the Act lists those who cannot be compromised, namely that constitutional values restrict private autonomy, directly or indirectly.