|
SOLAR
Team Entertainment Inc. (STEI), a provider of
entertainment shows in television and theater, has asked
the Supreme Court to require its former marketing agent
to remit sales and collections totaling P224.7 million,
representing sold advertising slots.
In a
30-page petition, STEI headed by businessman William
Tieng asked the Court to nullify the July 24, 2008
decision of the Court of Appeals declaring that it had
violated its compromise agreement with its advertising
agent Team Image Entertainment Inc. (TIE) headed by
Felix Sia Co.
TIE was
appointed by the petitioner as sole and exclusive agent
to market advertising spots and block times in movies,
telenovelas, television series, programs and airing
specials, to advertising agencies, commercial and
business establishments and enterprises who may wish to
advertise their products or business on television.
However,
STEI claimed that the respondent refused to turn over
the proceeds from its advertising sales, prompting it to
revoke TIE’s appointment as exclusive marketing agent.
STEI also filed a complaint for
accounting and damages against TIE before the Regional
Trial Court of Makati City but the parties entered into
a compromise agreement on April 30, 2003.
A year
after, TIE filed an omnibus motion to set the case for
accounting and for issuance of a writ of execution with
motion to suspend payment citing alleged violation of
the compromise agreement by the petitioner.
Specifically, TIE claimed that STEI violated paragraph
18 of the compromise agreement which states: “To further
assure each one of them, both parties shall within 10
days from the date of execution of this agreement,
submit to one another, certification and/or reasonable
and available proof of the existence of receivables.”
Thus,
TIE, pray for the immediate issuance of a writ of
execution to enforce compliance thereof, plus the sum of
P2 million as liquidated damages as mandated by
paragraph 24 of the compromise agreement.
The
lower court granted TIE’s petition in a resolution
issued on November 3, 2005, prompting STEI to elevate
the matter before the CA.
The
appellate court, in a decision issued on December 12,
2007 ruled that STEI has violated the compromise
agreement with TEI when it allegedly failed to
“provisionally dismiss” its complaint-in-intervention
against the latter, in a separate case involving the
marketing firm pending before a Makati City regional
trial court.
While
STEI’s petition was still pending before the CA, the
Tieng-owned company then filed an omnibus motion on
January 18, 2008 seeking the enforcement of the writ of
execution regarding the payment of the P2 million and
Co’s unpaid obligation to P8.5 million or the cash
equivalent of the 17 bad checks paid by Co.
In a
ruling dated May 19, 2008, the Makati City regional
trial court issued a writ of execution against Co to
enforce the payment of the P2 million and the unpaid
obligation of TIE.
TIE then
contested this ruling, but was rebuffed by the Makati
City court, in a decision issued on August 8, 2008 for
lack of merit.
The
lower court noted that while the payment of TIE’s
obligation was suspended, the suspension of payment does
not mean that they are already exonerated from their
obligation. “Defendants are still obliged to pay
plaintiff once the suspension of payment is lifted by
this court,” the lower court stressed.
While
Tieng got the upper hand of sort at the Makati City
court, the appellate court resolved to dismiss his
appeal, prompting STEI to file an appeal before the SC
early this month. |
