Case Digest (G.R. No. 151963)
Facts:
Air Philippines Corporation v. International Business Aviation Services Phils., Inc., G.R. No. 151963, September 09, 2004, Supreme Court First Division, Panganiban, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Air Philippines Corporation (API) engaged respondent International Business Aviation Services Phils., Inc. (IBASPI) as agent to secure a contractor to ferry API’s B-737 from the United States to the Philippines. IBASPI procured Universal Weather & Aviation, Inc. (UWAI) to perform the ferry flight; UWAI billed API through IBASPI for US$65,131.55, which API did not pay. Under pressure from UWAI, IBASPI advanced and paid UWAI the full amount and thereafter demanded reimbursement plus a 10% broker/commission. API offered a partial payment by check (P200,000) and the parties executed a Receipt/Agreement dated March 20, 1998 acknowledging partial payment and an obligation to pay the balance.
IBASPI filed a collection complaint with the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Pasay City, on June 24, 1998, seeking US$59,798.22 (the unpaid balance), US$6,513.00 as intermediary’s commission, attorneys’ fees, damages and costs, and appended the Receipt/Agreement. API answered but failed to file a pre-trial brief and its counsel, Atty. Manolito A. Manalo, repeatedly missed pre-trial appearances; the RTC denied API’s motions for extensions and allowed IBASPI to present its evidence ex parte. On April 7, 1999, the RTC rendered judgment for IBASPI ordering payment of US$59,798.22 with legal interest from May 1997, US$6,513.00 as intermediary’s commission, P50,000 attorneys’ fees, and costs.
API moved for a new trial alleging deprivation of its day in court due to counsel’s gross negligence, lack of authority of its counsel to sign the Receipt/Agreement, and insufficiency of IBASPI’s proof. The RTC denied the motion on July 26, 1999. On appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA‑GR CV No. 64283 affirmed the RTC judgment but deleted the brokers’ fee for lack of proof. API filed a Pet...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Whether the Court of Appeals erred in denying petitioner’s Motion for New Trial based on counsel’s alleged gross negligence and consequent deprivation of petitioner’s day in court.
- Whether the Court of Appeals erred in upholding the monetary awards (unpaid balance, legal interest, and attorneys’ fees) and in deleting the 10% brok...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)