Republic of the Philippines

Third Judicial Region

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
Malolos, Bulacan
Branch 15

STERLING PAPER PRODUCTS

ENTERPRISES, INC.,
Plaintiff,

-versus-

PHILIPPINE BRITISH
ASSURANCE COMPANY, Civil Case No. 136-M-2013
INC., For : Sum of Money
Defendant

x-----------------------------------------x

PHILIPPINE BRISTISH
ASSURANCE COMPANY, INC.,
Third- Party Plaintiff,

-versus-

EDITA V. ONGLAO,
Third- Party Defendant.
x------------------------------------------x

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

DEFENDANT PHILIPPINE BRITISH ASSURANCE

COMPANY INC ., through counsel, to this Honorable Court
1

respectfully states that:

1. On November 12, 2019, counsel received a copy of this

Honorable Court’s Resolution dated October 9, 2019 denying the
Demurrer to Evidence filed by the defendant.

2. Under Sec 1 of Rule 52 of the Rules of Procedure to wit:

SECTION 1. Period for filing.- Aparty may file a motion for

reconsideration of a judgement or final resolution within fifteen (15)
days from notice thereof, with proof of service on the adverse party.

1 Hereafter to be referred as “defendant” or “PBAC “for brevity.

 3. The defendant through counsel received a copy of this
Honorable Court’s Resolution dated October 9, 2019, on November
12, 2019, accordingly the defendant has a period of fifteen (15) days or
until November 27, 2019 within which to file this Motion for
Reconsideration.

4. Hence this Motion for Reconsideration.

ARGUMENTS AND DISCUSSION

5. In this Honorable Court’s Order dated October 9, 2019, the

Court denied PBAC’s demurrer on the premise that Sterling’s right to
enforce the performance bond already accrued in its favor for the alleged
failure of UPS to deliver a standby letter of credit. However, with all
due respect, it is upon this premise that this Order should respectfully be
reversed. In the first place, under a reciprocal obligation, it is incumbent
upon the plaintiff to establish with any credible evidence, that Sterling
has paid its counter-party, UPS, the corporation itself which is based in
a foreign jurisdiction, BEFORE it could claim any right under the
obligation. In the Order, the Honorable Court disregarded all of PBAC’s
arguments using the following rationale:

6. Defendant PBAC respectfully disagrees when this

Honorable Court started off with the premise that Sterling complied with
what is incumbent upon it in the Agreement. Thus, the Court assumed
that Sterling would have already been able to demand performance from
UPS the corporation. Thus, with all due respect, after Sterling’s
presentation of all its evidence, Sterling failed to prove that they have
complied with their obligation of paying UPS its fees. All of Sterling’s
evidence will show that it paid “fees” to a certain Mr. Ancheta, who
failed to provide any valid authority to represent UPS. It is a simple yet
crucial rule that in corporate dealings, the person should be authorized
by the Corporation, which requires the presentation of a Secretary’s
Certificate showing a resolution by the Board of Directors of the
Corporation.
 7. This is shown by the fact that plaintiff did not even require
Mr. Shubert R. Ancheta to produce a board resolution or secretary’s
certificate that he was authorized by UPS Group Holding Company
Ltd., to represent it, or that the corporation voluntarily bound itself
under the terms of the Memorandum of Agreement

8. This begs the question: would Sterling be able to demand

performance from UPS the corporation? In a simple suit, would it be
able to demand that UPS comply with its obligation when Sterling could
not even present a single piece of evidence that Sterling paid UPS
directly, and not any other? Absolutely NOT, as the Sterling’s formal
evidence would reveal. IN fact, this lawsuit would not even survive a
mere motion to dismiss on failure to state a cause of action. How can
Sterling demand UPS to comply with its obligation when Sterling did
not even pay UPS the required fees? True, Sterling released cash to a
certain Mr. Ancheta. Would that have been enough? Under the
standard requisite for proof, can these suffice since the plaintiff could not
even prove that it paid its counter party UPS. Would it be enough that it
paid an individual without the latter showing any authority to receive
the payment in CASH, instead of a corporate check deposited to the
bank account of the counter party, as would have been the regular and
normal course of business.

9. With all due respect, even without countervailing evidence

from PBAC, this Honorable Court would be able to deduce that Sterling
made payment to a third party, and NOT UPS, as the person who was
directly paid by Sterling did not have requisite authority to do so.

10. Throughout the trial, Sterling failed to present any evidence

that Mr. Shubert Ancheta had the authority to represent UPS HOLDING
GROUP COMPANY, LTD. Plaintiff failed to present any secretary’s
certificate, board resolution, or any other documentary proof that Mr.
Shubert Ancheta had the requisite authority or power to represent the
corporation UPS HOLDING GROUP COMPANY, LTD., in entering into the
Memorandum of Agreement.

11. In plaintiff’s Formal Offer of Evidence, there was no

document offered to show Mr. Shubert R. Ancheta’s to represent UPS
HOLDING GROUP COMPANY, LTD., enter into a contract to offer
operative bank instruments and cause the issuance of a bank guarantee,
and lastly, to receive payments in his name, on behalf of UPS HOLDING
GROUP COMPANY, LTD. For all intents and purposes, this was a one-
man show of Mr. Shubert R. Ancheta, who negotiated the terms, signed
the contract, and then personally received the FULL payment, all in his
name. After getting paid, he was gone.

12. From another angle, if PBAC would be forced to pay under

the performance bond, PBAC could not seek any action against UPS
since UPS would simply point out that it did not receive any payment
from Sterling, and that would be the end of it. How can PBAC or even
Sterling ever prove that payment was made to UPS, when the payment
was released to a third party without any authority to receive on UPS’
behalf. Secondly, Sterling went against normal business protocol by
paying it out in the name of the unauthorized person, instead of issuing
it in the name of its counter-party, UPS Holding Group Company, Ltd.,
so that the check would be deposited in the bank account of its counter-
party. Thus, Sterling brought about the conditions in which UPS failed
to receive payment based on its Memorandum of Agreement. Sterling is
entirely to blame as it had all the possible financial controls, but
disregarded it all.

13. Thus, defendant PBAC respectfully believes that the Order

should be reconsidered, after removing the mistaken premise that
Sterling is entitled at all to demand performance from UPS.

Sterling Paper Products Enterprises Inc.

has shown no right to the relief sought

14. Section 2, Rule 2 of the Rules of Civil Procedure provides:

SECTION. 2. Cause of action, defined. — A cause of action is the act

or omission by which a party violates a right of another.

15. The essential elements of a cause of action are as follows2:

1) A right in favor of the plaintiff by whatever means and

under whatever law it arises or is created;

2) An obligation on the part of the defendant not to violate

such right; and

3) An act or omission on the part of the defendant in

violation of the right of the plaintiff or constituting a breach of
the obligation of the defendant to the plaintiff for which the
latter may maintain an action for recovery of damages or other
relief.

2 Fluor Daniel, Inc.-Philippines v. E.B. Villarosa & Partners Co., Ltd., G.R. No. 159648, July 27, 2007.
 16. In the long line of cases Supreme Court held: “that it is,
thus, only upon the occurrence of the last element that a cause of action
arises, giving the plaintiff a right to file an action in court for recovery of
damages or other relief.”3

17. Records of the case would show that the Plaintiff failed to
prove the third element of the cause of action. During the plaintiff’s
presentation of its witness Ms. Perlita Skaar, it was admitted that the
Plaintiff failed to pay UPS Holding Group Company Ltd of the
Lease/Cutting fees, to wit:

“Atty. Camara:

Q. So we go to Clause 5.3, it refers to the terms of

payment by Sterling to UPS?

A. That’s right.

Q. What do you mean by the first sentence saying, “

simultaneous to the payment by the Second Party of the
Pesos: Three Million Seven Hundred Thousand ( Php 3,
700,000.00) as Lease/ Cutting Fee, the First Party shall
issue to the Second Party its corporate check in the same
amount of Pesos?

Atty. De Jesus:

Objection Your Honor, was being ask to explain was

putting in the agreement, Your Honor.

Atty. Camara:

Alright Your Honor.

Atty. Camara:

Q. Am I correct to say that in this agreement Sterling

is require to give out the amount of 3.7 Million to
UPS?

A. Yes Sir.4”

“ Atty. Camara:

3 Swagman Hotels and Travel, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 161135, April 8, 2005|||
4 See page 23 of the TSN dated March 8,2018,
 Q. As Lease/Cutting Fee?

A. Yes, Sir.

Q. And UPS shall issue to the second party a

corporate check in the same amount?
A. Yes, Sir

Q. Now did the second party UPS issue a corporate

check for 3.7 Million Pesos?

Atty. De Jesus:

Your Honor the question is misleading.

Court:
I may allow that. Witness may answer. If you know,
was there a corporate check issued in the amount of
3.7 Million…

A. We did not meet the transaction Your Honor.5”

18. The continuation of the cross examination would reveal that

Sterling varied the terms of payment against the terms of the
Memorandum of Agreement. Worse, that Sterling paid the amount to
Mr. Shubert Ancheta, who had no authority to receive payments on
UPS’s behalf.

19. In view of the admission made by the Plaintiff’s witness that

they failed to comply with its obligation to pay its counter party,
therefore UPS Holding Group Company Ltd. cannot be deemed in
default.

20. In the case of Megaworld Properties and Holdings, Inc. v.

Majestic Finance and Investment Co Inc.6 the Supreme Court held:

Reciprocal obligations are those which arise from the same cause, and
in which each party is a debtor and a creditor of the other, such that the
obligation of one is dependent upon the obligation of the other. They
are to be performed simultaneously, so that the performance of one
is conditioned upon the simultaneous fulfillment of the other. In
reciprocal obligations, neither party incurs in delay if the other does
not comply or is not ready to comply in a proper manner with what
is incumbent upon him.|

5 See page 24 of the TSN dated March 8, 2018.

6 G.R. No. 169694, December 9, 2015.
 21. Applying the above mentioned jurisprudence in this case, it
is apparent that the Plaintiff has no right to the relief sought because of
their failure to comply with their reciprocal obligation.

22. All told, the above discussion certainly merits

reconsideration of this Honorable Court’s Resolution.

PRAYER
|
WHEREFORE, premises considered, defendant PHILIPPINE
BRITISH ASSURANCE COMPANY INC., respectfully prays that this
Honorable Court reconsider its Resolution, and order the dismissal of
the plaintiff’s case against the defendant.

Other equitable relief are likewise prayed for.

Pasig City for City of Malolos Bulacan, November 27, 2019.

Custodio Cruz Puno &Camara Law Offices

Unit 1102 The Centerpoint Bldg., Julia Vargas Ave. Cor. Garnet Rd.,
Ortigas Center, Pasig City, Philippines 1605,
PO Box 12888, Ortigas CPO
Telephone No. + (632) 638 72 65
www.ccpclaw.org | info@ccpclaw.org

By:

Niersen C. Custodio
Roll of Attorneys No. 57270
IBP Lifetime Member Roll No. 08328, 04-21-2009
PTR No. 5233006, 01-07-2019, Pasig City
MCLE Compliance No.VI-0028662, 09-05-2019
Email: nccustodio@ccpclaw.org

Charles Michael T. Puno

Roll of Attorneys No. 57321
IBP Lifetime Member Roll No. 010428, 01-12-2012
PTR No. 5233005, 01-07-2019, Pasig City
MCLE Compliance No. VI-0028661, 09-05-2019
Email: ctpuno@ccpclaw.org

Mark Darwin A. Camara

 Roll of Attorneys No. 56725
IBP Lifetime Member Roll No. 012594, 04-02-2014
PTR No. 5233007, 01-07-2019, Pasig City
MCLE Compliance No. VI-0028665, 09-05-2019
Email: macamara@ccpclaw.org

Christine L. Paciencia
Roll of Attorneys No. 71233
IBP No. 059409, 01-07-2019, Manila City
PTR No. 5233003, 01-07-2019, Pasig City
MCLE Compliance No. VI- 0024221, 04-12-2019
Email: clpaciencia@ccplaw.org

Ineandro Pedro P. Tolentino

Roll of Attorneys No. 73353
IBP No. 088061, 05-15-2019,Batangas
PTR No. 5868919, 06-20-2019, Pasig City
Admitted to the Bar: 19 June 2019
Email: iptolentino@ccpclaw.org

Darlyn A. Dy
Roll of Attorneys No. 73734
IBP No. 087378, 05-21-2019, Pasig City
PTR No. 5914430, 07-03-2019, Pasig City
Admitted to the Bar: 20 June 2019
Email: dady@ccplaw.org

NOTICE OF HEARING and Copy Furnished

Honorable Branch Clerk of Court Registry Receipt:

Regional Trial Court Date:
Branch 15
Malolos City Bulacan

Atty. Kenneth C. De Jesus Registry Receipt:

Counsel for Plaintiff Date:
8th Floor 139 Corporate Center
139 Valero Street, Salcedo Village
Atty. Isagani Ramos Registry Receipt:
Counsel for Third Party Defendant Date:
Governor Padilla National Road
Poblacion, Plaridel Bulacan

Greetings!

Please take notice that foregoing MOTION FOR

RECONSIDERATION shall be submitted for the consideration and
approval of the Honorable Court on _______________.

Mark Darwin A. Camara Christine L. Paciencia

EXPLANATION
(Service Through Registered Mail/Private Courier)

Due to the heavy workload of messengerial personnel and the distance

of addresses, undersigned was constrained to serve a copy of the foregoing
pleading on the other parties by registered mail as evidenced by the registry
receipt.

Mark Darwin A. Camara Christine L. Paciencia