G.R. No. 167052 - BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS SECURITIES CORPORATION, VS. EDGARDO V. GUEVARA.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of [respondent] Edgardo V. Guevara ordering [petitioner] BPI Securities Corporation to pay [respondent] the following: the sum of US$49,500.00 with legal interest from the filing of this case until fully paid; the sum of P250,000.00 as attorneys fees and litigation expenses; and the costs of suit. An award of exemplary damages for P200,000.00 is denied for being speculative. [27] Petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals, assigning the following errors on the part of the RTC: The trial court erred in not passing upon the merit or validity of [petitioners] defenses against the enforcement of the foreign judgment in the Philippines. Had the trial court considered [petitioners] defenses, it would have concluded that the foreign judgment was not enforceable because it was made upon a clear mistake of law or fact and/or was made in violation of the [petitioners] right to due process. The trial court erred in not utilizing the standard for determining the enforceability of the foreign award that was agreed upon by the parties to this case during the pre-trial, namely, did the defendants in the Houston case (PHILSEC, AIFL, AND ATHONA) have reasonable grounds to implead [respondent] in the Houston case based upon the body of the evidence submitted therein. Thus, whether or not PHILSEC, AIFL and ATHONA ultimately prevailed against [respondent] was immaterial or irrelevant; the question only was whether they had reasonable grounds to proceed against him, for if they had, then there was admittedly no basis for the Rule 11 award against them by the Houston Court. x x x x x x x x x In the light of its ruling, the trial court failed to pass upon and resolve the other issues and/or defenses expressly raised by [petitioner], including the defense that PHILSEC, AIFL, and ATHONA were deprived of their right to defend themselves against the Rule 11 sanction and the main decision because of the prohibitive cost of legal representation in the us and also because of the gross negligence of its US counsel. x x x. [28] In its Decision dated December 19, 2003, the Fifth Division of the Court of Appeals decreed: WHEREFORE , the Decision dated 11 September 2000 in Civil Case No. 92-1445 of the Regional Trial Court of Makati, Branch 57, is hereby AFFIRMED in all respect with costs against [petitioner]. [29] In its Motion for Reconsideration, [30] petitioner lamented that the Fifth Division of the Court of Appeals failed to resolve on its own petitioners appeal as the Decision dated December 19, 2003 of the said Division was copied almost verbatim from respondents brief. Thus, petitioner prayed that the Fifth Division of the Court of Appeals recuse itself from deciding petitioners Motion for Reconsideration and that the case be re-raffled to another division. The Fifth Division of the Court of Appeals maintained in its Resolution dated May 25, 2004 that the issues and contentions of the parties were all duly passed upo