4/30/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly hearing, arguing that pursuant to Paragraph 6 of the Tripartite Agreement, Choithram and Ortigas were already in default, hence, execution proceedings should be resumed. The trial court, in its assailed order dated January 27, 1994, denied the motion, thus: "That defendant's desire to pay the balance of the amount stipulated in their Tripartite Agreement is apparent. Under the aforestated facts and circumstances, is it equitable that they be held in default? Article 1229 of the Civil Code gives the court the power to equitably reduce penalty when the principal obligation has been partly complied with by the debtor. In default cases, the court may likewise reconsider its order of default when the interest of justice so dictates. "In order not to put to naught all the efforts of the parties in forging the Tripartite Agreement which took them a long period of time to arrive at, the branch Clerk of Court is directed to immediately endorse to the counsel of plaintiffs, up to the time the same is encashed, under the following terms: 1. That the Quasha Law (F)irm receives the balance of the amount of P25 million in compliance with the Tripartite Agreement, adverted to, and subject to the tax claim of the BIR; 2. That it shall release to the plaintiffs the amount due them after the tax matter on said amount shall have been resolved, and in the meanwhile the said amount shall be deposited in an interest bearing account and/or money placement in treasury bills; and 3. The upon receipt of the aforestated amount, plaintiffs shall execute the Deed of Assignment of Judgment in favor of defendants Ortigas & Co., Ltd., Partnership and Choithram Jethmal Ramnani in the proportion agreed upon by the said defendants. In view of the foregoing, plaintiffs' Motion for continuation of hearing is DENIED."[3] Spouses Ishwar filed a Motion for Reconsideration but was denied. This prompted them to file with this Court a Manifestation and Urgent Motion contending inter alia that the lower court committed grave abuse of discretion in denying their motion for resumption of the execution proceedings. On August 17, 1999, this Court issued a Resolution denying spouses Ishwar's Manifestation and Urgent Motion and sustaining the challenged orders of the RTC. Hence, the present Motion for Reconsideration of the said Resolution. In their motion, spouses Ishwar contend that we are rewarding bad faith and fraudulent maneuverings on the part of the Choitram family. To allow non-compliance with the https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/52364 5/9