Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&amp;view=article&amp;id=49871:gr-174114-2007&amp;catid=1494&amp;Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 01:53:04+00:00

Document:
G.R. No. 174114 - DMG Industries, Inc. v. The Phil. American Investments Corp.
DMG INDUSTRIES, INC., Petitioner, v. THE PHILIPPINE AMERICAN INVESTMENTS CORPORATION, Respondent.
In a Resolution dated October 18, 2006, this Court denied the Petition for Review on Certiorari filed by petitioner DMG Industries, Inc. (DMG) of the Decision dated February 28, 2006 and the Resolution dated August 9, 2006 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 69941 for failure to show that the CA committed any reversible error as to warrant the exercise of its discretionary appellate jurisdiction and for raising factual issues improper for a Petition for Review .
reconsideration, petitioner DMG and respondent The Philippine American Investments Corporation (PAIC) entered, on February 14, 2007, into a compromise settlement agreement. However, on February 26, 2007, we denied with finality the motion for reconsideration.
Makati City, 11 October 2000."
"WHEREFORE, the appealed decision of the Regional Trial Court of Makati City (Branch 62) is AFFIRMED in toto."
"G.R. No. 174114 (DMG Industries, Inc. v. 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."
1.5. 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 agrees to the offered amicable settlement of the above-entitled case.
1.7. Now, therefore, for and in consideration of the foregoing premises, and the payment by Defendant-Petitioner DMG of the amount of Two Million Pesos (P2,000,000.00), receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged by Plaintiff-Respondent PAIC as full and complete payment of the obligation of the Defendant-Petitioner DMG to Plaintiff-Respondent PAIC, the parties hereto, hereby agree to settle and jointly and most respectfully move for the immediate dismissal of the above-entitled case, and all claims and counter-claims subject of said case or relative thereto, arising therefrom or in connection therewith.
1.8. The parties hereto hereby represent and warrant that they and their respective signatories have full power and authority to enter into and execute this Compromise Settlement Agreement.
1.9. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties herein, assisted by their respective counsels, hereunto set their hands on this 14th day of February 2007, at Pasig and Makati Cities.
INVESTMENTS CORP. DMG INDUSTRIES, INC.
Finding the above Compromise Settlement Agreement to be validly executed and not contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order, or public policy; we therefore, approve the same.
WHEREFORE, in light of the foregoing, the Resolution of this Court dated February 26, 2007 is RECALLED. The Urgent Joint Motion for Approval of Compromise Agreement dated February 14, 2007 is GRANTED. Judgment is hereby rendered in accordance with said Compromise Agreement. The instant case is DISMISSED. No pronouncement as to costs.
2 Xavierville III Homeowners Association, Inc. v. Xavierville II Homeowners Association, Inc., G.R. No. 170092, December 6, 2006; Rivero v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 141273, May 17, 2005, 458 SCRA 714, 735; Magbanua v. Uy, G.R. No. 161003, May 6, 2005, 458 SCRA 184, 190; Alonzo v. San Juan, G.R. No. 137549, February 11, 2005, 451 SCRA 45, 58-59.
3 Philippine National Oil Company-Energy Development Corporation (PNOC-EDC) v. Abella, G.R. No. 153904, January 17, 2005, 448 SCRA 549, 565.
4 Respondent filed a complaint with the then CFI, Seventh Judicial District of Pasig on August 10, 1982; Rollo, p.43.
6 Manila International Airport Authority(MIAA) v. ALA Industries Corporation, G.R. No. 147349, Febrary 13, 2004, 422 SCRA 603, 610.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.