REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

SUPREME COURT
MANILA

SILVER FILM, INC.,

Petitioner,2
-versus- G.R. No.________
(CA-GR. CV 54389)
LORENZO GARCIA,
Respondents.
x_________________x
PETITION FOR REVIEW
Petitioner, by counsel, respectfully states:

The Parties
1. Petitioner Silver Film Inc. is a domestic production corporation engaged in film making. It
holds offices at the Star Building, Eastwood Avenue, Quezon City.
2. Respondent Lorenzo Garcia (Garcia) is Filipino, of legal age and resident of Paranaque City.
He can be served with the processes of the Court thru their counsel of record, Atty. Juan
Topacio, at 2nd Floor, Avida Building, 5th Avenue, Paranaque City.

Material Dates
3. On October 24, 2004 the trial court rendered judgment based on the Amendment to the 2000
and 2002 Contract dated June 17, 2003 and considered it as Compromise Agreement between the
parties and all the other motions are hereby denied for having become moot and academic.

Statement of the Matters Involved

4. (summary)
1. (ruling of c.a. quotation)
2. Silver Films Inc. implores the court to reverse the above rulings for not only do they
contravene the law, but in turn, they are also irrational and unjust.
 The Facts and the Case
Plaintiff Brenda Simon and Lorenzo Garcia filed a complaint with the lower court dated
May 27, 2003 which sought the rescission of the 2002 Agreement they entered with the
defendant Silver Films, Inc. While the complaint was pending, there was a negotiation that took
place between Lorenzo Garcia, through Simon, and defendant Silver Films that took place in
June 17, 2003, which replaced all the terms and conditions that was expressed in the previous
contracts. Both Silver Films and Simon separately filed their motions to dismiss on the ground
that the parties had already been settled through their amendment.

Garcia, on the other hand opposed the Motions to Dismiss, by alleging that he did not
authorize Simon to represent him in the negotiations of the agreements. Moreover, Garcia
through a manifestation expressed his willingness to honor the terms and conditions of the said
amendment dated June 17, 2003 on the conclusion that it shall be considered as a Compromise
Agreement. Silver Films and Simon opposed Garcias proposal to treat the Amendment as a
compromise agreement, and instead suggested that the said terms and conditions to the
agreement be adhered to defendant shall release Garcia from his contractual commitments.

The trial court, through and order dated October 24, 2004 treated the Addendum to the
1996 and 1998 Contracts dated June 17, 2003 as a compromise agreement and denied all pending
motions including the Motions to Dismiss separately filed by Silver Films and Simon. Silver
Films filed a motion for reconsideration on the 2004 order, but the lower court rendered an order
dated Marc 6, 2005 which denied the motion for reconsideration and ruled in favor of Garcia, by
stating that:
A compromise agreement was entered into by the parties through the amendment dated
June 17, 2003.
Hence, this appeal.

Question of Law Presented

Petioner Silver Films Inc. presents the following questions of law:
1. Whether or not the amendment dated June 17, 2003 can be treated as a
Compromise Agreement.
2. Whether or not the Petitioner was deprived of its right to procedural due process
for it was not given the opportunity to file its answer as required by the Rules of
Court.
3. Whether or not the lower court erred in making two (2) diametrically opposed
moves.
 Reason for Allowing the Petition
I.
A RULING THAT THE PARTIES ENTERED INTO A COMPROMISE AGREEMENT IS
UNTENABLE.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the RTC that there was a compromise agreement
dated June 17, 2003. It held that the reason for the existence of the compromise was the
manifestation made by Garcia in conformity with the amendment. The Court of Appeals said:
In the instant case, there was an Amendment to the contract signed by Simon and
Silver Films representative to which amendment Garcia through his
manifestation expressed his conformity. There was, therefore, consent of all
parties.
The amendment or compromise agreement was perfected and is binding on the
parties and may not later be disowned simply because of change of mind of Silver
Films and/or Simon by claiming, in their Opposition/Reply to Garcias
Manifestation, that after the 2000 National Films Festival fiasco in which Garcia
was involved, the relationship between the parties had become bitter to render
compliance with the terms and conditions of the Amendment no longer possible
and consequently release Garcia from the 2000 and 2002 contracts.
But, with due respect to the Court of Appeals, there was no compromise agreement at all
because such was opposed by Silver Films Inc. In the case of Santos Ventura Hocorma
Foundation, Inc. vs. Santos, GR. No 123004, Nov. 4, 2004, the court held that:
Compromise is a contract whereby the parties, by making reciprocal concessions,
avoid a litigation or put an end to one already commenced. It is an agreement
between two or more persons, who, for preventing or putting an end to a law suit,
adjust their difficulties by mutual consent in the manner to which they agree on,
and which everyone of them prefers in the hope of gaining, balanced by the
danger of losing.

In the present case, the manifestation given by Garcia pertains to the Amendment per se
proposed by the Silver Films Inc. and Simon with a qualifying circumstance that it will be
considered as a compromise agreement. This condition was however opposed by Silver Films
Inc. and only shows lack of consent on their part to establish a compromise. Therefore, no
mutual consent was formed in the manner which they agreed on which do not qualify as a
compromise.
 II.
III.

Prayer
WHEREFORE, premises considered, PETITIONER most respectfully prays that this
Honorable Court reversed and set aside the decision from the lower court.
Petitioner likewise prays for such just and equitable reliefs under the circumstances.
[Explanation: Copies of the petition was already served to the adverse parties concerned through
registered mail, due to the distance involved as well as lack of messenger who could undertake
the personal service.]
Quezon City for Manila, April 1, 2016.

OLIMOND VERIZON
Counsel for Petitioner Silver Film Inc.
8th Floor, Star Building
143 Eastwood Avenue, Quezon City
Atty. Roll 14388
IBP No. 43117 05-20-2000
PTR NO. 9678342 03-31- 2001
MCLE Compliance II-143
Email: olimondverizon@gmail.com
Telephone and Fax: 8997654

Verification and Certification

I, Atty. Abcyller Cracencom, of legal age and with office address at the Star Building, Eastwood
Avenue, Quezon City, after having sworn in accordance with law, depose and state that:
1. I being the General Counsel and Corporate Secretary of Silvers Film Inc., duly
empowered to cause the filing of this petition on its behalf under a board resolution,
copy here attached;
2. I have read the foregoing petition as well as the facts stated in it, and which are based on
the authentic record of the case;
3. I have not commenced any action nor filed any claim involving the same issues of the
case in any court, tribunal, or quasi-judicial agency;
 4. To the best of my knowledge, no such action or claim is pending therein; and
5. If I should thereafter learn that the same or a similar action or claim has been filed or
pending, I shall report that fact within (5) days therefrom to this court.

_________________________
ABCYLLER CRACENCOM

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 28th day of March 2016 in Manila City.
Affiant exhibited to me his LTO Drivers License No N10-68-26735, expiring on
October 8, 2018.

HARVEY SPECTER
Notary Public
Attorneys Roll 65743
Appointment No. 897
Until December 26, 2016
PTR # 54631 1-12-2016
IBP # 65784 1-12-2016
MCLE Compliance III-8321
6537 The Pearl, United Nations Avenue, Manila
specterharvey@gmail.com

Doc. No. 817

Page No. 12
Book No. 5
Series of 2016

Copy Furnished:

The Court of Appeals

Ma. Orosa St., Ermita, Manila

Atty. Olivia Pope

12th floor, University Towers
Espana, Manila City

Atty. Mike Ross

Madison Building
Quezon Avenue, Quezon City

Atty. Bobbi Brown

25 Callaliliy St., Greenland Subdivision
Cainta, Rizal