Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
SILVER FILMS, INC.,

Petitioner,

- versus - G.R. No. 1234567

LORENZO GARCIA, (CA-GR CV No. 54389)

Respondent.
x-----------------------------------------------x

PETITION FOR REVIEW

Petitioner, by counsel, respectfully states:

The Parties

1. Petitioner Silver Films, Inc. (Silver Films) is a domestic

corporation engaged in film production and distribution. It holds
office at 10th Floor, Prime Building, Ermita, Manila.

2. Respondent Lorenzo Garcia (Garcia) is a Filipino, of legal age

and a resident of Manila City. He can be served with the processes
of the Court thru his counsel of record, Atty. Maria Leila B.
Penera at 5/F Rivera Santos Building, 54 Antonio Luna Street,
Sta. Cruz, Manila.

Material Dates

3. On June 8, 2004 Silver Films received a copy of the adverse

decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 54389 dated
June 5, 2004, a certified true copy of which is attached to the
original of this petition as Annex A. Consequently, Silver Films
had until June 23, 2004 within which to file a petition for review
of that decision. The Silver Films is filing this petition within the
period provided.

Statement of the Matters Involved

4. A complaint for rescission of movie contract was made by Garcia

and his talent manager Brenda Simon (Simon) against Silver
Films. Before filing an answer, Silver Films made renegotiations
 with the talent manager Simon which resulted to the Amendment
of the original movie contract. However, the latter denied the
Amendment before the court alleging that the same was not
authorized. During the pendency of the case, a turn of events
made Garcia accept and honor the Amendment and he sought
judgment approving the same to be treated as a Compromise
Agreement. However, Silver Films opposed to the aforesaid
Amendment be treated as a Compromise Agreement because
there was no meeting of the minds between the parties to the
Amendment.

5. In ruling over the validity of the Amendment as a Compromise

Agreement, the Court of Appeals made the following rulings:

One. 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.

Two. The amendment/compromise agreement was

perfected and binding on the parties and may not later be
disowned simply because of a change of mind of Silver
Film by claiming that the relationship between the parties
had become bitter to render compliance with the terms and
conditions of the Amendment.

6. Silver Films implores the Court to rectify the above rulings for
not only do they contravene the law, they are irrational and
unjust.

The Facts and the Case

7. The facts of the case are not in dispute. In 2000, Garcia a television
artist and movie actor, and his manager Brenda Simon (Simon)
entered in a movie contract with Silver Films, Inc. (Silver). In 2002
they agreement was renewed.

8. In 2003, Simon and Garcia sought filed a case with the lower Court
a Complaint which sought the rescission of the 2002 Agreement.

9. While the case was pending, a renegotiation between Garcia,

represented by Simon and Silver Films took place which resulted in
an Amendment dated 17 June 2003 that superseded all terms and
conditions embodied in the previous contracts.

10. Silver Films and Simon moved for the dismissal of the complaint for
rescission on the ground that the case had already been settled
through the Amendment
11. Garcia opposed the Motions to Dismiss on the ground that he did
not authorize the execution of the Amendment and that it was made
without his knowledge and consent and that it contained provisions
which are disadvantageous to him. Garcia also opposed the talent
managers motions claiming that he has ceased to be his manager
and that he had no authority to enter the Amendment.

12. Subsequently, before the scheduled preliminary conference of the

case at the court a quo, Garcia manifested his willingness to honor
the Amendment provided that it be considered as a compromise
agreement and the judgment be rendered in accordance therewith.

13. Silver Films and Simon opposed Garcias proposal to treat the
Amendment as a Compromise Agreement. Instead, Silver Films
suggested that the terms and conditions of the Agreement reached
by the parties during the preliminary conference be adhered to that
is to release Garcia from his contractual commitments. Silver Films
also alleged that the relationship between Garcia and Silver Films
had become acrimonious.

14. The trial court in an order dated 24 October 2004 treated the
Amendment as a Compromise Agreement and denied all pending
motions, including the Motion to Dismiss separately filed by Silver
Films and Simon. A subsequent Motion for Reconsideration was
filed which was denied.

15. Silver Films appealed the order to the Court of Appeals. Silver
Films filed its appellants brief, copy here attached as Annex B. In
response, Garcia filed his appellees brief, copy here attached as
Annex D.

16. On June 5, 2004, the Court of Appeals Affirmed the decision of the
trial court, hence this petition.

Questions of Law Presented

Reasons for Allowing the Petition

Prayer
 Verification and Certification

I, Atty. Audrey H. Golitghtly, of legal age and with office

address at 10th Floor, Prime Building, Ermita, Manila, after having
sworn in a accordance with law, depose and state that:

1. I am the General Counsel and Corporate Secretary of Silver

Films 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 and the facts stated in it are
true based on the authentic record of the case;

3. I have not theretofore commenced any action or filed any claim

involving the same issues 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 is pending, I shall report that fact within
five (5) days therefrom to this Court.