ChanRobles Virtual law Library

chanrobles.com - PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT RESOLUTIONS - ON-LINE

cralaw_scresolutions_separator.NHAD

[G.R. No. 138598. September 10, 2001]

ASSET PRIVATIZATION TRUST vs. SANDIGANBAYAN et al.

THIRD DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated SEPT 10 2001.

G.R No. 138598(Asset Privatization Trust vs. Sandiganbayan et. al.)

In her Motion for Reconsideration, private respondent argues that PJI has already paid APT P374,861,049.57 which she claims is more than enough to pay PJI's outstanding loans were it not for "the imposition of additional interests (on top of the regular interest), compounded penalties, and surcharges" plus "the galloping increase of the selling price of the U.S. dollar on which APT based its computation of the loan balance." She adds that "to allow the government to gain considerably from the loans subject of this case would run counter to the objective of the government to help in the development of private enterprise."

In the first place, this new and bigger sum allegedly paid is a new matter not taken up in the assailed Decision. Not having been taken up below, it cannot now be raised on appeal; not in the least in a motion for reconsideration. Besides, this Court is not a trier of facts; thus, it cannot determine its accuracy. In the second place, assuming arguendo that the amount is correct, we note that the additional amortizations have been made during the time that government nominees were managing PJI. In other words, they were not sourced from private respondent's effort, work or funds. Ironically, private respondent condemns the APT/PCGG management as incompetent and inefficient. Worse, following the Sandiganbayan's theory, private respondent would be entitled to a "refund" not only of P13,844,324.94 but of over P268 million (P374,861,049.57 less P106,821,912.06)! This proposition is even more unconscionable and more utterly disadvantageous to the government than the assailed Decision.

In any event, private respondent is asking us to set aside the existing loan agreements based on a policy to "help in the development of private enterprise." We have repeatedly held that courts are powerless to rescue parties who have entered into commercial contracts that place them at a disadvantage after they have defaulted in their obligations and after penalties by way of additional interest, surcharges, exchange rate differentials have been imposed, per said agreements. In the present case, PJI has not complied faithfully with the terms of the loan contracts. It cannot be given relief by way of a court-imposed agreement without the consent of the other party. Private respondent's invocation of assistance to private enterprise should he addressed to APT, not to this Court.

Movant's plea to use the DDBO price referred to in the assailed Decision, instead of the existing loan agreements, is a mere rehash of arguments already taken up by the Court during its long deliberations in this case and has been adequately addressed in our main Decision, which need not be reproduced here. The same is true with regards to her insistence to use 12% as the interest rate, instead of the contracted rate (3% above DBP's borrowing rate), per the loan agreements.

WHEREFORE, the Motion for Reconsideration, by the same vote of three to two as in our main Decision, is hereby DENIED. The prayer to refer the case to the Banc is also DENIED by unanimous vote, for lack of merit, it being clear that our Decision did not in any manner modify much less overrule any previous Court decision, and that Filipinas Marble v. IAC, et al., cited by movant is simply inapplicable to the present case.

This denial is FINAL. No further pleading to modify, alter, reverse, clarify or otherwise seek reconsideration of the foregoing discussion and disposition shall be entertained.

In regard to the movant's claim that APT has sent a later offer of a DDBO settlement dated 29 May 1991 which on its face has not expired (Annex C of the Motion for Reconsideration), and taking into account APT's Charter (Proclamation No. 50 dated December 8, 1986) which bars APT from permanently managing any entity under its control, and the fact that PJI has been under government management during the last fifteen years since 1986, this Court DIRECTS the parties (1) to confer immediately and discuss a fair and just DDBO or any other mode of settlement, and (2) to submit a report to this Court within six months from receipt hereof, on the progress of such discussion, or on a final agreement if one has been reached. The Court is taking this extraordinary measure, in the interest of reaching a fair settlement consistent with APT's Charter, considering that the DDBO offer dated 29 May 1991 has not been taken up either in the assailed Sandiganbayan ruling or in our own Decision.

SO ORDERED.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) JULIETA Y. CARREON

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