Case Digest (G.R. No. 143490)
Facts:
China Banking Corporation v. Dolores Padilla, G.R. No. 143490, February 02, 2007, the Supreme Court First Division, Garcia, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner China Banking Corporation (CBC) is the defendant in a suit filed by private respondent Dolores Padilla in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati City, docketed as Civil Case No. 97-3020 (raffled to Branch 136). On December 22, 1997 Padilla sued CBC for sums of money and damages, alleging numerous erroneous debits and payments from her checking account (e.g., specific debits on March 4 and April 1, 1997; several undebited large withdrawals; and an allegedly erroneous clearing of checks resulting in losses).
After Padilla filed suit, CBC audited the transactions and concluded that its Tuguegarao branch manager, Emelina T. Quitan, exceeded her authority and committed several banking irregularities (unauthorized overdrafts, accommodating overdrawn checks, making good insufficiently funded checks, unauthorized bill-purchase facilities, improper fund transfers, insubordination, and other acts). CBC terminated Quitan on November 13, 1998 and sought leave of the trial court to implead her by filing a third-party complaint alleging indemnity, subrogation and contribution.
In an Order dated August 17, 1999 the RTC denied CBC's motion for leave to file a third-party complaint, reasoning that a corporation acts through its employees and is responsible for their acts in the discharge of their functions, so any claim against Quitan should be pursued separately. CBC's motion for reconsideration was likewise denied.
CBC filed a petition for certiorari in the Court of Appeals (CA), docketed CA-G.R. SP No. 55795, seeking relief from the RTC order. The CA, however, in a Resolution dated January 26, 2000, denied due course to and dismissed the petition for CBC's failure to comply with Section 3, Rule 46 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure (the petition lacked certified true copies of the orders and other pertinent documents; many attachments were plain photocopies and other documents referred to were not appended). CBC filed a motion for reconsideration in the CA attaching certified copies and explaining the omission as honest mistake/excusable negligence, but the CA in its June 2, 2000 Resolution denied the motion for reconsideration and refused to reinstate the petition. CBC then file...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals err in refusing to reconsider and reinstate CBC's petition despite CBC's subsequent compliance with Section 3, Rule 46 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure?
- Did the trial court commit grave abuse of discretion in denying CBC's motion for leave to file a third-party complaint aga...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)