G.R. NO. 166058 - EMERITA GARON, VS. PROJECT MOVERS REALTY AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION AND STONGHOLD INSURANCE COMPANY, INC.. D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, plaintiff respectfully prays that after hearing on the merits, this Court render[s] judgment in favor of plaintiff and against defendants as follows: Ordering defendant PMRDC to pay plaintiff the sums of: 1.1. PESOS: Six Million Eighty-Eight Thousand Seven Hundred Eighty-Three and 68/100 (P6,088,783.68) under PMRDC-97-12-332; and 1.2. DOLLARS: One Hundred Eighty-Nine Thousand Four Hundred Eighteen and 75/100 (US$189,418.75) under PMRDC-97-12-333. Declaring defendant Stronghold solidarily liable, and ordering it to pay plaintiff the sum of PESOS: Twelve Million Seven Hundred Fifty-Five Thousand One Hundred Thirty-Nine and 85/100 (P12,755,139.85) under SICI Bond No. 67831. Ordering defendant PMRDC to pay: 3.1. Interest at 36% per annum and a penalty of 3% per month until full payment on the unpaid amount due under PMRDC-97-12-332; 3.2. Interest at 17% per annum and a penalty of 3% per month until full payment on the unpaid amount due under PMRDC-97-12-333; 3.3. Legal interest on the interest accruing at the time of the filing of the complaint conformably with Article 2212 of the New Civil Code. On the third cause of action, ordering: 4.1. defendant PMRDC to pay PESOS: Ten Thousand (P10,000.00) as attorney's fees stipulated in PMRDC-97-12-332; 4.2. defendant PMRDC to pay PESOS: Ten Thousand (P10,000.00) as attorney's fees stipulated in PMRDC-97-12-333; and 4.3. defendant Stronghold to pay Attorney's fees in the amount of P200,000.00. 4.4. defendants PMRDC and Stronghold to pay plaintiff such amounts of litigation expenses and costs of suit as may be proven during trial. Other reliefs just and equitable under the premises are likewise prayed for. [12] In its Answer, [13] SICI averred, as special and affirmative defenses, that the complaint stated no cause of action and was prematurely filed; its obligation had been extinguished; the liability on the bond had been discharged by the act of plaintiff and by the act of law; and its liability on the bond had prescribed. [14] It likewise contended that at the time plaintiff sent the demand letter, the obligation guaranteed by the bond had not yet matured. [15] It further claimed that it was misled by plaintiff and PMRDC that the bond guaranteed its investment with the project of PMRDC at Monumento Plaza. SICI also asserted that Garon did not exercise the diligence of a good father of a family to avoid or minimize losses since she did not even require the surrender of the OCLTs before the promissory notes were signed and the loans released. SICI also set up a cross-claim against PMRDC for the payment of any amount it may be ordered to pay to Garon, pursuant to the Indemnity Agreement [16] executed by the latter. [17] For its part, PMRDC denied that it executed the above-stated promissory notes and alleged instead that they were merely roll-overs of PN No. 97-07-228 and 97-08-260. [18] It also alleged that it had already complied with its undertaking under the promissory notes when it put up a sur