G.R. NO. 174114 - DMG INDUSTRIES, INC., VS. THE PHILIPPINE AMERICAN INVESTMENTS CORPORATION. RESOLUTION - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the plaintiff or against the defendant. Accordingly, the defendant is ordered to pay plaintiff: the sum of P516,797.63 with interest and penalty charges thereon computed in accordance with the parties' Memorandum of Agreement (Exh. A) and the defendant's promissory note (Exh. B) from April 1, 1982 until the principal amount shall have been fully paid; a sum equivalent to 25% of the amount in item no. (1) by way of attorney's fees; the cost of this suit; SO ORDERED Makati City, 11 October 2000." 1.2. Whereas, the Decision of the Court of Appeals dated 28 February 2006 in the same case, affirmed this RTC Decision in toto as follows: "WHEREFORE, the appealed decision of the Regional Trial Court of Makati City (Branch 62) is AFFIRMED in toto. " 1.3. Whereas, the Honorable Supreme Court in turn likewise affirmed the Decision of the Court of Appeals in its Resolution dated 18 October 2006, when the Honorable Court denied the Defendant's Petition for Review on Certiorari as follows: "G.R. No. 174114 (DMG Industries, Inc. vs. The Philippine American Investment Corporation) � Considering the allegations, issues, and arguments adduced in the petition for review on certiorari of the decision and resolution dated February 28, 2006 and August 9, 2006, respectively, of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 69941, the Court resolves to DENY the petition for failure of the petitioner to sufficiently show that the Court of Appeals committed any reversible error in the challenged decision and resolution as to warrant the exercise of this Court's discretionary appellate jurisdiction. Besides, the issues raised are factual." 1.4. Whereas, the aforequoted Resolution is the subject of a pending Motion for Reconsideration filed by Defendant-Petitioner DMG; 1.5. Whereas, at this point of time, Defendant-Petitioner DMG has offered to amicably settle the above-entitled case for the amount of Two Million Pesos (P2,000,000.00) primarily invoking humanitarian considerations, since the bulk of the monetary award in the aforequoted Decision of the Regional Trial Court a quo consists merely of penalties and corresponding attorney's fees which were substantially increased because of the prolonged litigation period; thereby in effect imposing on Defendant-Petitioner a "penalty" of sort; just for exercising its right to litigate a legally contestable issue, a penalty which is frowned upon by courts of equity as well as by civil society. 1.6. Whereas, considering that the Liquidator of Plaintiff-Respondent PAIC has consistently followed the policy of granting discounts in exchange for the immediate cash settlement of the receivable accounts of Plaintiff-Respondent PAIC on the penalties and attorney's fees charged in such accounts; and considering further, that the foregoing offer of amicable settlement is not contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order and public policy, Plaintiff-Respondent PAIC agr