Case Digest (G.R. No. 71479)
Facts:
Mellon Bank, N.A. v. Hon. Celso L. Magsino, G.R. No. 71479, October 18, 1990, the Supreme Court Third Division, Fernan, C.J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Mellon Bank, N.A. sought review by special civil action of certiorari of several lower-court orders issued in Civil Case No. 26899 (Court of First Instance of Rizal, later the Regional Trial Court of Pasig, Branch CLIX/159), the principal respondents being the trial judge, Hon. Celso L. Magsino, and numerous private respondents including Melchor Javier, Jr. and Victoria Javier, heirs and associates of Honorio Poblador, Jr., and several corporate and individual transferees (F. C. Hagedorn & Co., Elnor Investment, Paramount Finance, Jose Marquez, Cipriano Azada et al.).
The dispute began with an erroneous wire transfer on May 27, 1977: a remittance intended as US$1,000 was transmitted as US$1,000,000. Manufacturers Hanover (correspondent) forwarded the erroneously large sum (net of charges) to Prudential Bank for the account of Victoria Javier. The Javiers opened a new dollar account and rapidly withdrew and re-routed most of the funds; portions were converted into cashier’s checks and used in part to purchase a 160‑acre lot in Kern County, California allegedly owned by Honorio Poblador, Jr. A deed of sale was executed and sent for registration in Kern County.
On July 1977 petitioner filed suit in the Superior Court of California (docket No. 148056) seeking imposition of a constructive trust over the Kern County property. On July 29, 1977, petitioner also filed Civil Case No. 26899 in the Court of First Instance of Rizal to recover the misapplied funds, to require accounting, and to hold defendants liable for the conversion and dissipation of the trust funds. In the Philippine proceedings Mellon Bank presented tracing evidence linking sales proceeds and bank deposits to respondents’ accounts and conduct; defendants objected to bank‑related testimony on grounds of irrelevance, res inter alios acta and the secrecy of bank deposits under Republic Act No. 1405.
After hearings, Judge Eficio Acosta conditionally admitted testimony of Philippine Veterans Bank and HSBC witnesses but, on September 10, 1982, issued a resolution striking those testimonies and the supporting documents, reasoning that Mellon Bank’s earlier California suit to recover the real property constituted an election of remedies and that disclosure of bank deposits was barred by RA 1405. Mellon Bank’s motion for reconsideration was denied (October 28, 1983), and a subsequent motion for reconsideration was ruled proscribed by the 1983 Interim Rules of Court (order of July 9, 1985) by the lower court then presided by Judge Celso L. Magsino.
Petitioner invoked a special civil action for certiorari in the Supreme Court, arguing that the September 10, 1982 resolution was interlocutory (hence the denial of reconsideration...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the trial court gravely abuse its discretion in treating its September 10, 1982 resolution as a final and definitive disposition and in denying petitioner’s motions for reconsideration on that basis?
- Does the doctrine of election of remedies bar petitioner from pursuing recovery of the purchase price in the Philippines because petitioner filed a suit in California to impose a constructive trust on the Kern County property?
- Were the testimonies and documentary bank evidence rightly stricken from the record as inadmissible under the secrecy of bank depos...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)