Parties plaintiffbpi defendants

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: e and that writ of execution shall be issued as a matter of right. (Emphasis supplied) Petitioner, failed to pay the amounts stated in the compromise. Hence, private respondent filed a motion for the issuance of a writ of execution which was granted by the trial court. Petitioner filed a motion to quash the writ of execution, contending that the penalty should not be imposed because the failure to pay was due to the private respondent’s fault (He alleged that he refused to pay because the person sent by private respondent to collect payment did not present a special power of attorney authorizing him to receive said payment). One year after, petitioner filed another motion to quash. This time, he contended that there was fraud in the execution of the compromise agreement. He claimed that 3 sets of compromise agreement were submitted for his approval. Among them, he allegedly chose and signed the compromise agreement which contained no stipulation as to the payment of 2% monthly interest and 25% attorney’s fees in case of default in payment. He alleged that his former counsel, Atty. Leonardo Cruz, who assisted him in entering into the said agreement, removed the page of the genuine compromise agreement where he affixed his signature and fraudulently attached the same to the compromise agreement submitted to the court in order to make it appear that he agreed to the penalty clause embodied therein. Private respondent denied the contention and even presented Atty. Cruz who declared that the petitioner gave his consent to the inclusion of the penalty clause of 2% monthly interest and 25% attorney’s fees in the compromise agreement. He added that the compromise agreement approved by the court was in fact signed by the petitioner inside the courtroom before the same was submitted for approval. Atty. Cruz stressed that the penalty clause of 2% interest per month until full payment of the amount due, plus 25% thereof as attorney’s fees, in case of default in payment, was actually chosen by the petitioner over another proposed more burdensome penalty clause. TC: trial court issued the assailed order denying petitioner’s motion seeking to quash the writ of execution an...
View Full Document

{[ snackBarMessage ]}

Ask a homework question - tutors are online