G.R. No. 136804 - Manufacturers Hanover Trust Co. vs. Guerrero

On May 17, 1994, respondent Rafael Ma. Guerrero filed a complaint for damages with the RTC of Manila against Manufacturers Hanover Trust Co. and/or Chemical Bank, alleging:

Guerrero amended his complaint on April 18, 1995 to clarify and expand his damage claims.

On September 1, 1995, the Bank answered, asserting that the New York–law choice-of-law clause bars all claims except for actual damages.
The Bank filed, under Section 2, Rule 34 of the old Rules of Court, a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment seeking dismissal of claims for consequential, nominal, temperate, moral, and exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees. The motion was supported by the affidavit of New York attorney Alyssa Walden, authenticated by the Philippine Consular Office in New York, asserting New York law permits only actual damages.

On March 6, 1996, the RTC denied the Bank’s motion for partial summary judgment and on July 17, 1996 denied its motion for reconsideration.
The Bank petitioned the Court of Appeals for certiorari and prohibition but the CA, in a Decision dated August 24, 1998, dismissed the petition and, on December 14, 1998, denied its motion for reconsideration.

The Bank filed a petition under Rule 45 to set aside the CA’s August 24, 1998 Decision and December 14, 1998 Resolution, contending that:

It was entitled to prove facts supporting its motion by affidavit
The Walden affidavit is not hearsay under Rule 35 as it expressly permits affidavits
Guerrero failed to file an opposing affidavit, thus conceding the Walden affidavit’s statements

Did the Court of Appeals err in holding that the Bank’s proof of facts for its motion for partial summary judgment could not be given by affidavit?
Did the Court of Appeals err in ruling that the Walden affidavit, which purported to prove New York law, is hearsay and cannot serve as proof of foreign law under the Rules of Court?