Subsequently, the parties concluded a compromise agreement8 of 9 July 2001, in which PJI undertook to re-engage the 31 complainants with effect from 1 July 2001, without loss of rights and seniority benefits; Seventeen of them, previously dismissed, were agreed to pay their claims in full and in full, while 14 others received their pecuniary claims, less what they received in the form of separation compensation. The agreement states that the parties concluded the agreement “in a sincere concern for peace and reconciliation, as well as in the establishment of a new era in labour management relations, characterized by mutual trust, cooperation and support, reinforced by open, constant and sincere communication aimed at promoting the interests of both the company and its employees.” The compromise agreement was submitted to the NLRC for approval. All staff mentioned in the agreement and in the NRC resolution have signed it. They also signed the joint manifesto and the declaration of assistance and mutual cooperation,9 which had also been submitted to the Labour Court for consideration. A compromise must not be contrary to law, morality, morality and public order; and must have been carried out freely and intelligently by the parties.14 In order to have legal force among the parties,15 it must comply with the requirements and principles of treaties.16 On the parties, it has the effect and authority of res judicata as soon as it is completed.17 “Art. 2040. If, following the decision of a dispute, a compromise were to be found by a final compromise, one or the other not knowing the existence of the final judgment, the compromise may be annulled. Having ruled in the present action on the validity of the special agreement, the Court now focuses on the waiver of claims or requests for receipts executed by the petitioners. The object of the waiver was their concession when they cancelled the agreement. They claim, however, that the absence of their lawyer and the working arbitrator in the execution of the declaration of waiver invalidates the document. A close examination of the wording of the compromise agreement will show that the parties agreed that the only issue to be resolved was the issue of the demand for money from several employees.
The prayer of the parties in the compromise agreement submitted to the NLRC is as follows: the agreement was subsequently approved by the NLRC. The case was found closed and closed and the resolution of 31 May 2001 was fully implemented to the extent that the “collaborators referred to in paragraphs 2c and 2d of the compromise agreement” were concerned. . . .