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 ofthe garnishment of his deposits. He also testified that he is a graduate of the Ateneo deManila University in 1982 with a double degree of Economics and ManagementEngineering and of the University of the Philippines in 1987 with the degree ofBachelor of Laws. Respondent likewise presented witnesses to prove that he is a wellknown lawyer in the business community both in the Philippines and in HongKong.18For its part, the lone witness presented by petitioner was Nepomuceno whoclaimed that she acted in good faith in alleging that respondent is a resident of HongKong.19
On August 30, 2000, the trial court awarded damages to respondent in the amount ofP25 Million without specifying the basis thereof, thus:WHEREFORE, premises above considered, and defendant having dulyestablished his claim in the amount of 25,000,000.00, judgment is hereby₱rendered ordering Prudential Guarantee & [Assurance] Co., which is solidarilyliable with plaintiff to pay defendant the full amount of bond under PrudentialGuarantee & Assurance, Inc. JCL(4) No. 01081, [Bond No. HO-46764-97], dated24 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, plaintiffis hereby ordered to pay defendant the amount of 6,201,265.31.₱SO ORDERED.20The trial court denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration on October 24, 2000.21Petitioner elevated the case to the Court of Appeals which affirmed the findings of thetrial 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 ofrespondent’s Philippine residence and office address goes into the very issue of thetrial court’s jurisdiction which would have been defective had respondent not voluntarilyappeared before it.The Court of Appeals, however, reduced the amount of damages awarded to petitionerand specified their basis. The dispositive portion of the decision of the Court of Appealsstates:WHEREFORE, the appeal is PARTIALLY GRANTED and the decision appealedfrom is hereby MODIFIED. The award of damages in the amount of25,000,000.00 is deleted. In lieu thereof, Prudential Guarantee & [Assurance,₱Inc.], which is solidarily liable with appellant [herein petitioner], is ORDERED topay 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.22Both parties moved for reconsideration. On November 21, 2006, the Court of Appealsdenied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration but granted that of respondent’s byordering petitioner to pay additional 5Million as exemplary damages.₱23Hence, the instant petition.