4/30/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly checks were personal checks payable, not to spouses Ishwar, but to the RTC Branch Clerk of Court. They were not manager's or cashier's checks. Spouses Ishwar also state that the tender was conditional. It carried what they called "unacceptable conditions." The checks could not be indorsed to them because they were "Not transferable." The term and maturity were limited in nature. Third and most important, the intent to really pay as agreed upon was missing. It was not a genuine or sincere tender. Instead of making good on the stipulated payment, the Choithram family created a situation in such a way that the balance of P25 million was to be paid to the Bureau of Internal Revenue, not to spouses Ishwar. Thus, Choitram peremptorily wrote a poison letter to the BIR requesting "clarification" on the alleged tax liabilities of spouses Ishwar, and of his (Choithram's) "obligations" as payor. Choithram maliciously concealed from the BIR the material fact that Ishwar, although an alien, is a permanent resident of the Philippines, and his income and amounts received under the Tripartite Agreement are, therefore, not subject to 30% withholding tax at source. Under the Tax Code, a final 30% withholding tax at source is mandated to be collected only from non-resident aliens. The BIR promptly issued an assessment based on an incomplete presentation of facts by Choithram, directing him to withhold Twenty Million One Hundred Fifty Thousand Pesos (P20,150,000.00) For the mischief of the Choithram family, spouses Ishwar were needlessly compelled to litigate before the Court of Tax Appeals and subsequently before the Court of Appeals, and in the process wasted time and incurred expenses just to correct the harm done by the said family. The Court of Tax appeals reversed the BIR and ruled that Ishwar is a resident alien and his income is not subject to 30% automatic final withholding tax at source. Subsequently, the Court of Appeals affirmed the CTA ruling on the status of Ishwar as a resident alien. The administrative and judicial processes which Ishwar had to undergo because of the deceit and unscrupulous acts of the Choithram family consumed five (5) exhausting years, from 1993 until the dispute was finally resolved in 1998. Indeed, incessant bad faith on the part of the Family Choithram is evident. A second hard look at the history of these cases shows that it was a mis-step and when we upheld the orders of the trial court dated January 7, 1994 and April 5, 1994. They should be rescinded. By way of conclusion, it is elementary that if a party fails or refuses to abide by a compromise agreement, the other party may either enforce the compromise or regard it as rescinded and insist upon his original demand.[5] This rule must be followed. For indeed, "it is not the province of the court to alter a contract by construction or to make a new contract for the parties; its duty is confined to the interpretation of the one which they have made for themselves without regard to its wisdom or folly as the court cannot supply material stipulations or read into the contract words which it does not contain."[6] WHEREFORE, this Court's Resolution dated August 17, 1999 is reconsidered. The January 27, 1994 and April 5, 1994 orders of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 119, https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/52364 8/9