Once a proceeding is closed by a final judgment, the rights of the parties are governed; A compromise agreement is no longer necessary. While this may not be wise, we have seen, in a number of cases, that the parties have still reviewed and effectively implemented this agreement. It goes without saying that the parties can continue to reach a compromise agreement after the final decision. A mutual concession inherent in a compromise agreement guarantees the parties benefits. For the battered applicant, the benefit of a compromise after a final judgment is obvious, since the liability ordered by the judgment may be reduced. As far as the dominant party is concerned, it ensures that payment is received, as the parties to the trial are sometimes deprived of their profits because unscrupulous mechanisms are supposed to delay or circumvent the execution of a final judgment.  (Quotes are omitted and insist on our) 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. Article 2040, paragraph 1, refers to a scenario in which one or both parties are not aware of a final court decision at the time of the compromise agreement. In this case, the law allows them to denounce the compromise agreement. The paragraph quoted states that such an agreement is not prohibited or not. Instead, an appeal to annul the contract, which constitutes an appeal for annulment, is declared available.22 The law allows a party to denounce a compromise agreement because it could have been concluded in ignorance of the existence of a final judgment. Knowledge of a final decision can have implications for the determination to reach a compromise agreement. The Tribunal also finds that Oscar, the farmer who did not enter into a compromise agreement with SMS, filed a demonstration and motion before the RTC on 15 September 2006, stating that “he has no plans, as he has no financial position to exercise the right of redemption granted to him”. You can definitely try.
However, you should be aware that when you call the complainant`s lawyer`s office, you will most often speak to a collection company and not to a lawyer.