6/9/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly payment in US Dollars, and which still retained overdue amounts collectible by VPECI. … Second, appellant was very much aware of the violations committed by the SOB of its contractual undertakings with VPECI, principally, the payment of foreign currency (US$) for 75% of the total contract price, as well as of the complications and injustice that will result from its payment of the full amount of the performance guarantee, as evident in PHILGUARANTEE’s letter dated 13 May 1987 …. … Third, appellant was fully aware that SOB was in fact still obligated to the Joint Venture and there was still an amount collectible from and still being retained by the project owner, which amount can be set-off with the sum covered by the performance guarantee. … Fourth, well-apprised of the above conditions obtaining at the Project site and cognizant of the war situation at the time in Iraq, appellant, though earlier has made representations with the SOB regarding a possible amicable termination of the Project as suggested by VPECI, made a complete turn-around and insisted on acting in favor of the unjustified “call” by the foreign banks.[35] The petitioner then came to this Court via Rule 45 of the Rules of Court claiming that the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the trial court’s ruling that I …RESPONDENTS ARE NOT LIABLE UNDER THE DEED OF UNDERTAKING THEY EXECUTED IN FAVOR OF PETITIONER IN CONSIDERATION FOR THE ISSUANCE OF ITS COUNTER-GUARANTEE AND THAT PETITIONER CANNOT PASS ON TO RESPONDENTS WHAT IT HAD PAID UNDER THE SAID COUNTER-GUARANTEE. II …PETITIONER CANNOT CLAIM SUBROGATION. III …IT IS INIQUITOUS AND UNJUST FOR PETITIONER TO HOLD RESPONDENTS LIABLE UNDER THEIR DEED OF UNDERTAKING.[36] elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/45413 5/17