Case Digest (G.R. No. 159127)
Facts:
In Ramon Gerardo B. San Luis vs. Hon. Pablito M. Rojas in his capacity as Presiding Judge, RTC Branch 70, Pasig City, and Berdex International, Inc., the Supreme Court resolved on March 3, 2008 under the 1987 Constitution a petition for certiorari under Rule 65. On July 12, 2001, Berdex, a U.S. foreign corporation with principal office in San Francisco, filed in the Pasig RTC Civil Case No. 68530 a complaint for sum of money against petitioner San Luis, alleging that he received in June 1997 various payments partly as advances or loans and partly for the acquisition of 40% shares in two Philippine corporations, yet failed to transfer any shares and treated all funds as his personal loan. Berdex claimed only US$20,000 had been repaid and prayed for the balance of US$150,335.75 with interest and attorney’s fees. San Luis answered that the funds were used to purchase shares of Seanet Corporation on Berdex’s behalf and later for another company he established, Fuegomar Traders, Inc.Case Digest (G.R. No. 159127)
Facts:
- Complaint and Answer
- On July 12, 2001, Berdex International Inc., a U.S. corporation, filed Civil Case No. 68530 in the RTC of Pasig City for collection of US$150,335.75 plus interest and attorney’s fees, alleging petitioner received funds as advances/loan and paid only US$20,000.
- Petitioner answered, asserting funds were used to buy shares in Seanet Corporation on respondent’s behalf and later to be paid by Fuegomar Traders, Inc., a company he owned; he denied a personal loan obligation.
- Trial Court Orders
- On April 4, 2002, respondent moved to take depositions via written interrogatories of American witnesses abroad, citing distance, age, and post-9/11 security concerns.
- RTC granted the motion on May 9, 2002, and denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration on July 3, 2002.
- Court of Appeals Proceedings
- Petitioner filed a Rule 65 petition before the CA, which dismissed it on September 11, 2002 for procedural defects (no affidavit of service; blurred annexes; missing pleadings).
- The CA denied reconsideration on May 20, 2003, invoking Administrative Circular No. 3-96 that barred subsequent compliance.
Issues:
- Whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion by dismissing petitioner’s Rule 65 petition on procedural technicalities despite substantial compliance.
- Whether the CA gravely abused its discretion in upholding the RTC’s grant of depositions by written interrogatories abroad to prove an alleged oral contract.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)