that instead of choosing an unbiased and skilled appraiser, respondentconnived with 1488, Inc., Ducat, and Daic in selecting Craig, who turnedout to be the former owner of the Harris County property and a closeassociate of 1488, Inc. and Daic; and that respondent endorsed topetitioner Craig’s appraisal of the market value of the Harris Countyproperty, which was overvalued by more than 400%.According to petitioner, it had reasonable grounds to impleadrespondent in Civil Action No. H-86-440 so the sanction imposed upon itunder Rule 11 of the U.S. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure was unjustified.Petitioner additionally argues that there is no basis for the U.S. DistrictCourt to impose upon it the Rule 11 sanction as there is nothing in the saidprovision which allows “the imposition of sanctions for simply bringing ameritless lawsuit.” If the Rule 11 sanction was imposed upon petitioner aspunishment for impleading a party (when it had reasonable basis for doingso) and not prevailing against said party, then, petitioner claims that such asanction is against Philippine public policy and should not be enforced inthis jurisdiction. Settled in this jurisdiction that there should be nopremium attached to the right to litigate, otherwise parties would be veryhesitant to assert a claim in court.Petitioner further alleges that it was denied due process in Civil ActionNo H-86-440 because: (1) the U.S. District Court imposed the Rule 11sanction on the basis of a single document, i.e., the letter dated September26, 1983 of Bruce C. Bossom, a partner at Jones Lang Wooton, a firm ofchartered surveyors and international real estate consultants, addressed toa Mr. Senen L. Matoto of AIFL (marked as Exhibit 91 before the U.S. DistrictCourt), which was never admitted into evidence; (2) in said letter, JonesLang Wooton was “soliciting a listing agreement” and in which the “said
9firm unilaterally, without being asked as to the value of the [Harris County]property, indicated a value for the [same] which approximate[d] with thevalue given in the Craig appraisal,” hence, it cannot be used as basis toconclude that petitioner, AIFL, and ATHONA assented to Craig’s appraisal ofthe Harris County property; (3) the counsel who represented petitioner,AIFL, and ATHONA in Civil Action No. H-86-440 before the U.S. DistrictCourt was grossly ignorant and/or negligent in the prosecution of theircounterclaims and/or in proving their defenses, such as when said counselfailed to present an expert witness who could have testified as to theactual market value of the Harris County property or when said counselfailed to discredit respondent’s credibility despite the availability ofevidence that respondent had been previously fined by the PhilippineSecurities and Exchange Commission for “stock manipulation”; and (4) theexcessive and unconscionable legal fees charged by their U.S. counseleffectively prevented them from making further appeal.
You've reached the end of your free preview.
Want to read all 14 pages?
- Fall '19
- Pleading, Appellate court