The reasons for a plea for adjournment of the decision of the case are not persuasive. The petitioner argues that the MAB acted whimsically in unilaterally settling the case against its earlier decision to grant the parties the right to make the joint application. However, as the Attorney General noted, the fact that only 27 days after the parties suggested resolving their differences and filing an application, the ICC submitted a resolution of the challenge application does not reflect an arbitrary and strange change in sentence. The records show that the ACC has made an effort to get the parties to resolve their differences themselves and that it was only when it did not make the claim for the case that the CAC made its decision. The expiry of a 27-day period before it acted was subject to reasonable discretion, as it was an administrative case that had to be resolved by the mailing. The motion for a resolution was ripe for a solution even before the parties had begun to put in place the mechanisms of the colony. The ICC certainly had the right and duty to resolve the matter immediately, as the parties did not act immediately on its direction. Early resolution of cases is a constitutional obligation.34 In a litany of cases, we have always decided that courts and administrative authorities must resolve cases quickly and efficiently. The speed of the organization of cases is of the utmost importance in the administration of justice. It is obvious that deferred justice is denied to justice.
In essence, the petitioner, on the basis of his discussion, raises two issues that we are looking at. The first is whether CA erred in upholding the dismissal of the complaint, without a joint application for dismissal of the CCC applicant and a private respondent ROII. The second is whether CA provided legal assistance for the continuation of the agreement between petitioners and private respondents as a valid compromise agreement, which allowed the case to be brought to a definitive end between them. II. A declaration of intent with the terms of a treaty is a valid compromise agreement; it can be executed on its perfection, not on complete perfection. In order, all the basic elements of a contract are present. The agreement is a valid compromise agreement between the petitioner and the private respondent. On the other hand, the interim measures are immediately enforceable and cannot be suspended by a proof of certiorari, except in the case of an application for an injunction to suspend the order.
However, there are judgments or decisions of administration or quasi-justice that are immediately executed, unless the execution is withheld in the meantime by the Court of Appeal. Only Supreme Court decisions are considered judicial precedents which, in subsequent cases, must be followed by all jurisdictions in the country according to the Stare Decisis principle. Yes, yes. The Philippine Constitution requires that no court make a decision without clearly expressing the facts and the law on which it is based.