Case Digest (G.R. No. 136804)
Facts:
Manufacturers Hanover Trust Co. and/or Chemical Bank v. Rafael Ma. Guerrero, G.R. No. 136804, February 19, 2003, the Supreme Court First Division, Carpio, J., writing for the Court.On May 17, 1994, Rafael Ma. Guerrero (respondent) filed a complaint for damages with the Regional Trial Court of Manila (RTC) against Manufacturers Hanover Trust Co. and/or Chemical Bank (petitioner/the Bank), alleging (1) illegally withheld taxes charged against interest on his checking account, (2) a returned check for US$18,000 allegedly dishonored due to signature verification problems, and (3) unauthorized conversion of his account. Guerrero amended his complaint on April 18, 1995.
On September 1, 1995, the Bank answered and pleaded that the parties’ account agreement stipulated the governing law to be New York law, which, the Bank asserted, permits only actual damages and bars Guerrero’s claims for consequential, nominal, temperate, moral and exemplary damages and attorneys’ fees. The Bank thereupon filed a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment under the old Rules of Court (seeking dismissal of all damages claims except actual damages), supported by the affidavit of Alyssa Walden, an attorney in New York (the Walden affidavit). The Walden affidavit was authenticated by the Philippine Consular Office in New York.
The RTC denied the Bank’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on March 6, 1996, and denied reconsideration on July 17, 1996. The Bank petitioned the Court of Appeals for certiorari and prohibition arguing, inter alia, that the Walden affidavit sufficed to prove New York law for summary judgment purposes. In its Decision of August 24, 1998 and Resolution of December 14, 1998 in CA‑G.R. SP No. 42310, the Court of Appeals dismissed the petition and held that the Walden affidavit did not properly prove New York law or jurisprudence under Section 24, Rule 132 (proof of foreign public documents) and that the affidavit could not substitute for the procedures required to prove foreign law.
The Bank then filed a petition for review under Rule 45 in the...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals err in ruling that the Walden affidavit could not be used to prove New York law for purposes of the Bank’s motion for partial summary judgment?
- Was the Walden affidavit hearsay or otherwise inadmissible such that it could not support summary judgment?
- Did Guerrero’s failure to file an opposing affidavit operate as an admission sufficient to warran...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)