G.R. No. 151963 - AIR PHILIPPINES CORPORATION, VS. INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS AVIATION SERVICES PHILS., INC.. DECISION - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, [respondent] respectfully prays of this Honorable Court to render judgment: 1) Ordering the [petitioner] to pay the [respondent] the sum of US$59,798.22 x x x or its equivalent in legal tender with interest at the legal rate from May 1997 until full payment; 2) Ordering the [petitioner] to pay the [respondent] further sum of US$6,513.00 or its equivalent in legal tender as intermediarys commission; 3) Ordering the [petitioner] to pay the [respondent] another sum of US$13,026.00 or its equivalent in legal tender as actual damages in the form of attorneys fees; 4) Ordering the [petitioner] to pay the [respondent] expenses of litigation as can be proved; 5) Ordering the [petitioner] to pay the costs of the suit; and, 6) [Respondent] prays for such further or other relief as may be deemed just or equitable. The [respondent] appended to its complaint the Receipt/Agreement executed by the [petitioner], on March 20, 1998. In its Unverified Answer , API alleged, inter alia , by way of Affirmative Allegations , that: 8. In support of the foregoing denials and by way of affirmative allegations, [petitioner] states: 9. On 6 November 1997, we received a letter from [respondent] demanding payment of $65,131.00 allegedly for the ferry flight services rendered by Universal and brokered by [respondent]. 10. On 1 December 1997 and 12 January 1998, we sent letters to [respondent] acknowledging receipt of their demand letter[.] However, we mentioned in the letters that we needed time to process the documents submitted by [respondent] to support their claim. 11. APC made it very clear that if an obligation on the part of [petitioner] is proven to exist, [petitioner] would be more than willing to settle the obligation. 12. In fact, as mentioned in the complaint, [petitioner] made a payment of P 200,000.00 to cover claims which [petitioner] did not contest; [petitioner] opted not to settle the balance of the claim pending verification of the submitted supporting documents. 13. [Petitioner] verbally requested [respondent] to further substantiate its claim by sending their accountants to the offices of APC[.] 14. [Respondent] did not heed this request; thus, APC could not release any other amounts to cover the claim of [respondent.] 15. The documents sent by [respondent] were not accompanied by any explanation and were merely a loose collection of statements from various companies[.] 16. Thus, [petitioner] was surprised when [respondent] filed the instant complaint[,] for[,] as far as the former [was] concerned[,] the accounting of the claim was nowhere near definite nor clear[.] On November 17, 1998, the Court issued a Pre-Trial Notice setting the pre-trial conference on December 7, 1998, at 8:30 x x x in the morning, requiring the parties to file their respective Pre-Trial Brief at least two (2) days before the scheduled pre-trial. The [respondent] did file its Pre-Trial Brief[,] but the [petitioner] did not. During the pr