Case Digest (G.R. No. 214054)
Facts:
Ng Meng Tam v. China Banking Corporation, G.R. No. 214054, August 05, 2015, Supreme Court Third Division, Villarama, Jr., J., writing for the Court.The petition arises from a collection suit originally filed by China Banking Corporation against Ever Electrical Manufacturing Company, Inc., the heirs of Go Tong, Vicente Go, George Go and petitioner Ng Meng Tam in December 2008. China Bank alleged it granted Ever a loan of P5,532,331.63 secured by two surety agreements executed by Vicente, George and petitioner in favor of China Bank. When Ever allegedly defaulted, China Bank sent demand letters to George, Vicente and petitioner; the bank later filed Civil Case No. 08-1028 (raffled to RTC Branch 62, Makati City).
In his answer, petitioner denied receipt of a demand letter and alleged the surety agreements were void or unconscionable. Petitioner sought a preliminary hearing on affirmative defenses (statute of limitations and laches); the trial court denied the motion but the Court of Appeals reversed in a December 22, 2010 decision ordering a preliminary hearing pursuant to Rule 16, Sec. 6. That CA decision became final and executory on August 28, 2011.
On March 15, 2011 petitioner served written interrogatories to parties under Rule 25, Secs. 1 and 6 on China Bank; George C. Yap, Account Officer, answered on June 22, 2011. After failure of mediation the case was re-raffled to RTC Branch 139. Petitioner sought issuance of subpoena duces tecum and ad testificandum to compel Yap’s testimony and documents because his interrogatory answers were alleged evasive.
When Yap was called on April 29, 2014, China Bank objected under Section 5 of the Judicial Affidavit Rule (JAR), claiming Yap could not be compelled to testify because the opposing party had not first obtained and filed a judicial affidavit. The RTC ordered memoranda and on May 28, 2014 denied petitioner’s motion to examine Yap sans judicial affidavit, holding Section 5 applied and noting Yap had ...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Does the Judicial Affidavit Rule (JAR) apply to pending cases?
- Does Section 5 of the JAR apply to adverse party witnesses or hostile witnesses?
- Having served written interrogatories and received answers from the adverse party’s witness, was petitioner entitled to examine George Yap in open court w...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)