MANILA - The Court of Appeals has affirmed its earlier ruling ordering actress Rosanna Roces to pay P3.1 million in damages to an aesthetic clinic for breach of contract due to defamatory statements.
In a resolution dated January 18, 2019, the CA Former Eleventh Division junked Roces' plea for the court to reconsider its June 6, 2018 decision finding her liable to Forever Flawless Face and Body Center.
"A perusal of the Motion for Reconsideration reveals that there are no new and substantial issues raised therein which have not been judiciously passed upon by this Court. Thus, We find no cogent or compelling reason to alter, modify or reverse the said Decision," the court's resolution said.
The resolution was penned by CA Associate Justice Ramon Bato, Jr. and concurred in by Associate Justices Ramon Cruz and Pablito Perez.
In the court's June 2018 ruling, also penned by Justice Bato, Roces (Jennifer Molina in real life) was found to have violated her contract with Forever Flawless.
Roces, in 2003, sold 2,500 shares she acquired as endorser of Forever Flawless to the clinic for P1.5 million.
Part of the agreement in the deed of sale was for Roces not to malign or discredit the services of the clinic. For every breach of the agreement, she was bound to pay P1 million.
Roces, in interviews in 2004 however, alleged there were Forever Flawless customers suffering from burned skin and accused celebrity doctor and clinic consultant Vicky Belo of conducting flawed liposuction procedure and of being an unethical doctor.
Belo has claims of ownership to shares of stock in the clinic.
In her defense, Roces denied giving her consent to the agreement, alleging her signature was forged.
Both the Quezon City regional trial court and the CA rejected Roces' claim, saying allegations of forgery must be proven by "clear, positive and convincing evidence."
Instead, both courts upheld the contract between Roces and Forever Flawless.
"As correctly held by the RTC, fundamental is the principle that a contract is the law between parties. Absent any showing that its provisions are contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order, or public policy, it should be enforced to the letter," the decision read.