G.R. Nos. 159669 & 163521 - UNITED OVERSEAS BANK PHILS. (FORMERLY WESTMONT BANK), VS. ROSEMOORE MINING & DEVELOPMENT CORP. AND DRA. LOURDES PASCUAL.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, plaintiff Rosemoor Mining & Development Corporation respectfully prays that, after trial of the issues, this court promulgate judgment - Directing Westmont to render an accounting of the loan account of Rosemoor under the Long Term Loan Facility and the Revolving Credit Line at least up to the dates of foreclosure of Rosemoor's mortgaged properties on May 22, 1998 and August 18, 1998, showing among others (a) the sums of money paid by Rosemoor or otherwise debited from its deposit account in payment of the loans it had obtained from Westmont to cover the cost of the machinery to be imported under the Unpaid LCs and under LC No. 97-058 for the tiling plant, as well as for working capital, and (b) all interests, penalties and charges imposed on the loans pertaining to the Unpaid LCs and LC No. 97-058 and for which Westmont had foreclosed Rosemoor's and Dra. Pascual's real estate mortgage; (c) the amount of import and customs duties, demurrage, storage and other fees which Rosemoor had paid or which was otherwise debited from Rosemoor's deposit account, in connection with the importation of the tiling plant and as a consequence of the non-release thereof by Westmont; Ordering all the defendants jointly and severally to pay to Rosemoor, by way of actual damages, the dollar equivalent of the amounts in (1) (a), (b) and (c) at the exchange rate prevailing at the time of the opening of the LCs; Ordering defendants jointly and severally to pay to Rosemoor actual damages for operational losses suffered by Rosemoor due to its failure to use the tiling plaint which Westmont had refused to release to Rosemoor, in such amount as may be proven at the trial; Directing the defendants jointly and severally to pay, by way of correction for the public good, exemplary damages in the amount of P 500,000.00 each; Ordering defendants jointly and severally to indemnify Rosemoor in the sum of P350,000.00, representing attorney's fees and litigation expenses incurred by Rosemoor for the protection and enforcement of its rights and interests. Plaintiff prays for further and other relief as may be just and equitable under the circumstances. [19] On 15 August 2002, the Bank filed another motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint on the ground of forum-shopping since, according to it, Rosemoor had filed another petition earlier on 11 March 2002 before the Malolos RTC. [20] The Bank contended that as between the action before the Manila RTC and the petition before the Malolos RTC, there is identity of parties, rights asserted, and reliefs prayed for, the relief being founded on the same set of facts. The Bank further claimed that any judgment that may be rendered in either case will amount to res judicata in the other case. [21] Still, the Manila RTC denied the motion to dismiss. [22] It also denied the Bank's motion for reconsideration of the order of denial. [23] The Bank challenged the Manila RTC's denial of the Bank's second motion to dismiss before the Cou