[ G.R. No. 128690. February 28, 2000]

ABS-CBN BROADCASTING CORP. vs. HON. CA, et al.

FIRST DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated FEB 28 2000.

G.R. No. 128690 (ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corp. vs. Honorable Court of Appeals, et al.)

On 21 January 1999, we promulgated our decision in this case whose dispositive portion reads as follows:

WHEREFORE, the instant petition is GRANTED. The challenged decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 44125 is hereby REVERSED except as to the unappealed award of attorney's fees in favor of VIVA Productions, Inc.

On 12 February 1999 petitioner filed a Manifestation with Motion for Partial Reconsideration of the Decision insofar as it finds that petitioner did not appeal from the award of attorney's fees in favor of Viva Productions, Inc. Petitioner claims that it likewise challenged that award, for its petition, it alleges as one of the errors of law committed by the Court of Appeals that

D.

RESPONDENT COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN AWARDING ATTORNEY'S FEES IN FAVOR OF PRIVATE RESPONDENTS

Petitioner further claims that in its argument therein it attacked, among other things the award of attorney's fees to VIVA Productions, Inc, and it made a similar presentation in its Memorandum.

In its Comment/Opposition to the Partial Motion for Reconsideration, private respondent Republic Broadcasting System, Inc. (RBS) observed that, in reality, attorney's fees to RBS was reversed in our decision. As the decision states the key issues in the case are (1) whether there was a perfected contract between VIVA and ABS-CBN, and (2) whether RBS is entitled to damages and attorney's fees. We held that the first issue should be resolved against ABS-CBN, thereby affirming the decision of the Court of Appeals that there was no perfected contract between ABS-CBN and VIVA. It follows then that the decision of the Court of Appeals was not entirely reversed and that ABS-CBN's petition was not entirely granted, as, it merely deleted the award of damages and attorney's fees to RBS. RBS then suggests that the dispositive portion be modified to reflect that the decision of the Court of Appeals was merely modified by deleting the award of damages and attorney's fees to RBS; or to state that said decision is affirmed except as to the award of damages and attorney's fees to RBS, which is deleted.

In their comment and Opposition to petitioner's Partial Motion for Reconsideration, private respondents VIVA Productions, Inc., and Vicente del Rosario assert that petitioner could not have validly assigned as error the award of attorney's fees to VIVA and that it could not question our discretion to take into consideration that assignment of error. They claim that in its appeal from the decision of the trial court to the Court of Appeals, petitioner did not question the trial court's award of attorney's fees to VIVA. In its Appellee's Brief filed with the Court of Appeals petitioner had consistently refused and failed to challenge the attorney's fees awarded to VIVA.

Petitioner filed a Motion to Expunge from the Record the Comment/Opposition of private respondent RBS for being defective in substance and in form, as RBS has no business making any opposition considering that the Partial Motion for Reconsideration did not affect it. Its Comment/Opposition is not a responsive to the Motion for Reconsideration. It is more for a motion for reconsideration. Yet, RBS filed no motion for reconsideration.

On 30 March 1999 RBS filed an Opposition to the Motion to Expunge.

On 13 April 1999 petitioner filed a Reply to the Comment/Opposition of VIVA and Vicente del Rosario. Anent its failure to appeal the trial court's award of attorney's fees to VIVA , petitioner asseverated that:

Viva and Del Rosario themselves brought up the matter to the said appellate court where in their appellant's brief they argued the sole issue, that:

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN NOT FINDING THAT DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS VIVA AND DEL ROSARIO ARE ENTITLED TO MORAL AND EXEMPLARY DAMAGES AND ADDITIONAL ATTORNEY'S FEES

After a meticulous assessment of the issues raised and arguments adduced in the aforementioned pleadings, we are convinced that since petitioner has not challenged before the Court of Appeals the trial court's award in the amount of P212,000, which was affirmed by the Court of Appeals in connection with the appeal of VIVA and Del Rosario, petitioners cannot now be heard to claim a right to contest the award of the Court of Appeals. It would have been entirely different if the Court of Appeals increased the award, as prayed for by VIVA and Del Rosario.

WHEREFORE, petitioner's Partial Motion for Reconsideration of the Decision of 21 January 1999 is DENIED for want of sufficient merit.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) VIRGINIA ANCHETA-SORIANO

Clerk of Court


Back to Home | Back to Main

 

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE

PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

QUICK SEARCH

cralaw

 







chanrobles.com





ChanRobles Legal Resources:

ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com