SARPLAST PHILIPPINES, INC., PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, V. I.M. BONGAR & COMPANY, INC., DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

On January 13, 2014, this Court promulgated its Decision^[1] denying the appeal filed by defendant-appellant I.M. Bongar & Company, Inc. (“Bongar” for brevity) of the Decision dated October 13, 2011^[2] and the Order dated July 9, 2012^[3] of the Quezon City Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 227, in Civil Case No. Q-98- 36424.

Subsequently, defendant-appellant Bongar filed a Motion for Reconsideration dated January 30, 2014^[4] to which plaintiff-appellee Sarplast Philippines, Inc. (“Sarplast” for brevity) filed its “Comments” dated March 18, 2014.^[5]

Defendant-appellant Bongar urged Us to take a second look at Our Decision stressing that this Court improperly appreciated the evidence presented by plaintiff-appellee Sarplast.^[6] Also, it stressed that this Court erred in not giving credence to the testimony of Fersally Frias^[7] as well as the Memorandum dated November 28, 1997 and Letter dated April 24, 1998 it presented^[8] but instead, had given probative value to the Letter dated October 16, 1998 allegedly submitted by defendant-appellant Bongar.^[9]

We resolve to deny the motion.

After a careful scrutiny of Our Decision and the rationale therefor, We are ever more convinced of its legal logic and correctness. The core issues raised by defendant-appellant Bongar were already carefully dissected, analyzed and addressed by this Court, hence, We find no sufficient or justifiable reason to disturb the same.

WHEREFORE, in light of the foregoing, the Motion for Reconsideration is hereby DENIED for lack of merit.

SO ORDERED.

Librea-Leagogo (Chairperson) and Galapate-Laguilles, JJ., concur.

---

^[1] Rollo, pp. 78-85.

^[2] Id. at 42-59.

^[3] Id. at 60.

^[4] Id. at 88-112.

^[5] Id. at 117-120.

^[6] Id. at 90.

^[7] Id. at 104.

^[8] Id. at 105.

^[9] Id. at 107.