Case Digest (G.R. No. 117032)
Case Digest (G.R. No. 117032)
Facts:
Ma. Patricia Garcia, Belen G. Gutierrez, Nicanor Gutierrez, Grace M.B. Gutierrez, Carolyn M.B. Gutierrez, Gerwin Garcia, Gerson Garcia, and Gilmer Garcia v. Court of Appeals, Hon. Pedro M. Icamina, Judge of the Regional Trial Court, 6th Judicial Region, Branch 9, Kalibo, Aklan; Rural Bank of Sara, Inc., Rafael C. Dinglasan, Jr., Maria Elena I. Dinglasan, Anthony Cabugso and Leda Suello, G.R. No. 117032, July 27, 2000, Supreme Court Third Division, Purisima, J., writing for the Court.On October 5, 1987 the petitioners (eight depositors) filed Civil Case No. 3777 in Branch 9, Regional Trial Court of Kalibo, Aklan, through one Florencio Junior Garcia who purported to act as their attorney-in-fact. The complaint alleged that on February 10, 1984 the depositors had made time deposits with Rural Bank of Sara, Inc. evidenced by eight time-deposit certificates totaling P283,788, which matured February 11, 1986; the complaint sought the principal plus interest at 17% per annum and alleged that bank officers refused to pay upon presentation and repeated demands, including a formal demand letter dated August 27, 1987 (received Sept. 4, 1987), went unanswered.
The bank and its officers (manager and cashier) answered, asserting, among other defenses, that Florencio Junior Garcia was not properly authorized to transact or to sue on behalf of all depositors; that the deposits were subject to secrecy and signature verification rules; and that no valid withdrawals had been made. The spouses Rafael and Maria Elena Dinglasan (co-respondents) denied privity of contract with the plaintiffs and likewise questioned the attorney-in-fact’s authority.
The petitioners moved for summary judgment under Sections 1 and 3, Rule 34, arguing there was no genuine issue of material fact and that they were entitled to judgment as a matter of law. On March 30, 1993 the trial court (Branch 9, RTC, Kalibo) denied the motion for summary judgment. The petitioners elevated the matter to the Court of Appeals via a petition for certiorari alleging grave abuse of discretion; the Court of Appeals (Thirteenth Division, CA-G.R. SP. No. 31231) on August 31, 1994 affirmed the trial court’s denial, finding genuine issues of material fact — specifically whether Florencio Junior Garcia had authority to file the suit for all named plaintiffs and whether the spouses Dinglasan could be held jointly and severally liable with the bank. Petitioners then filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 before the Supreme Court challenging the CA’s conclusion and seeking reversal of the denial of summary judgment.
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals err in holding that genuine issues of material fact exist that preclude summary judgment in favor of the petitioners?
- Were there sufficient undisputed facts showing (a) that Florencio Junior Garcia was properly authorized to institute the action for all named plaintiffs and (b) that the spouses Dinglasan may be held jointly and severally liable with the bank, so that summary judgment should have been granted?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)