From the Philippine Star:
Apart from confirming the termination of his contract, the host asked for P5 million in moral damages, P5 million in exemplary damages, attorneys’ fees of P1 million, as well as P500,000 for “other expenses and cost of litigation.”
In a statement, Revillame said he is willing to forgo his claim for damages if he and ABS-CBN can go their separate ways amenably.
Revillame wants out of a contract, so he claims breach by the other party. But he is willing to forego damages for the alleged breach. It appears that what he really wants is the freedom to work for another network. This, after he signed a contract tying him to a particular TV network, and he wants a Court to give him that freedom.
Given that there are more important cases on the court dockets, Revillame is probably out of luck using the litigation route to get what he wants. It can take forever, i.e., until 9/11/11, by which time the contract terminates anyway.
Perhaps Revillame believes that public opinion will be on his side. But public opinion cannot confer demandable rights, and cannot insulate another network from a business interference tort suit should it decide to employ Revillame.
In the circumstances, I believe that the better approach is for Revillame to quietly settle the matter. Often, that old cliché works: Discretion is the better part of valor.
Here’s a law school question: Would it make more sense for Revillame to sue on breach of contract? Why or why not?