He presented evidence showing that his 15000000 RCBC check payable to his

He presented evidence showing that his 15000000 rcbc

This preview shows page 127 - 129 out of 179 pages.

garnishment of his deposits. He presented evidence showing that his 150,000.00 RCBC check payable to his counsel as attorney’s fees, was dishonored by reason of the garnishment of his deposits. He also testified that he is a graduate of the Ateneo de Manila University in 1982 with a double degree of Economics and Management Engineering and of the University of the Philippines in 1987 with the degree of Bachelor of Laws. Respondent likewise presented witnesses to prove that he is a well known lawyer in the business community both in the Philippines and in Hong Kong. 18 For its part, the lone witness presented by petitioner was Nepomuceno who claimed that she acted in good faith in alleging that respondent is a resident of Hong Kong. 19
Image of page 127
On August 30, 2000, the trial court awarded damages to respondent in the amount of P25 Million without specifying the basis thereof, thus: WHEREFORE, premises above considered, and defendant having duly established his claim in the amount of 25,000,000.00, judgment is hereby rendered ordering Prudential Guarantee & [Assurance] Co., which is solidarily liable with plaintiff to pay defendant the full amount of bond under Prudential Guarantee & Assurance, Inc. JCL(4) No. 01081, [Bond No. HO-46764-97], dated 24 October 1997 in the amount of 18,798,734.69. And, considering that the amount of the bond is insufficient to fully satisfy the award for damages, plaintiff is hereby ordered to pay defendant the amount of 6,201,265.31. SO ORDERED. 20 The trial court denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration on October 24, 2000. 21 Petitioner elevated the case to the Court of Appeals which affirmed the findings of the trial court. It held that in claiming that respondent was not a resident of the Philippines, petitioner cannot be said to have been in good faith considering that its knowledge of respondent’s Philippine residence and office address goes into the very issue of the trial court’s jurisdiction which would have been defective had respondent not voluntarily appeared before it. The Court of Appeals, however, reduced the amount of damages awarded to petitioner and specified their basis. The dispositive portion of the decision of the Court of Appeals states: WHEREFORE, the appeal is PARTIALLY GRANTED and the decision appealed from is hereby MODIFIED. The award of damages in the amount of 25,000,000.00 is deleted. In lieu thereof, Prudential Guarantee & [Assurance, Inc.], which is solidarily liable with appellant [herein petitioner], is ORDERED to pay appellee [herein respondent] 2,000,000.00 as nominal damages; 5,000,000.00 as moral damages; and 1,000,000.00 as attorney’s fees, to be satisfied against the attachment bond under Prudential Guarantee & Assurance, Inc. JCL (4) No. 01081. SO ORDERED. 22 Both parties moved for reconsideration. On November 21, 2006, the Court of Appeals denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration but granted that of respondent’s by ordering petitioner to pay additional 5Million as exemplary damages. 23 Hence, the instant petition.
Image of page 128
Image of page 129

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture