Case Digest (G.R. No. 185145)
Facts:
In Spouses Vicente Afulugencia and Leticia Afulugencia v. Metropolitan Bank & Trust Co. and Emmanuel L. Ortega, the petitioners filed on May 24, 2004 before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Malolos City, Branch 7, Civil Case No. 336-M-2004 a Complaint for nullification of mortgage, foreclosure, auction sale, certificate of sale and related documents, with damages, against the defendant Metrobank, a domestic banking corporation, and Emmanuel L. Ortega, Clerk of Court and Ex-Officio Sheriff. After pre-trial, petitioners sought to present Metrobank’s officers as their initial witnesses and to compel them to bring loan and foreclosure documents through a Motion for Issuance of Subpoena Duces Tecum Ad Testificandum scheduled on August 31, 2006. The notice of hearing did not specify date and time. Metrobank opposed for lack of proper notice, contending that under Sections 1 and 6, Rule 25 of the Rules of Court its officers, as adverse parties, could not be compelled to testify withouCase Digest (G.R. No. 185145)
Facts:
- Parties and Complaint
- Petitioners spouses Vicente and Leticia Afulugencia filed a Complaint for nullification of mortgage, foreclosure, auction sale, certificate of sale and other documents, with damages, against Metropolitan Bank & Trust Co. (Metrobank) and Emmanuel L. Ortega (Clerk of Court and Ex-Officio Sheriff) before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Malolos City (Civil Case No. 336-M-2004).
- Metrobank is a domestic banking corporation; Ortega is the RTC clerk and ex-officio sheriff tasked with executing court processes.
- Motion for Subpoena Duces Tecum Ad Testificandum
- After pre-trial, petitioners moved to subpoena Metrobank officers (Abendan, Cajucom, Reyes) to appear and testify as their initial witnesses on August 31, 2006, and to produce loan documents and foreclosure papers.
- Metrobank opposed, arguing (a) the motion lacked a proper notice of hearing (Rule 15, Secs. 4–5), (b) officers of an adverse party cannot be compelled to testify without prior written interrogatories (Rule 25, Secs. 1 & 6), (c) documents sought were not shown material or relevant, and (d) the motion was a fishing expedition.
- RTC and CA Rulings
- The RTC (Oct. 19, 2006 order; Apr. 17, 2007 order) denied the motion and its reconsideration for lack of hearing notice and failure to serve written interrogatories on adverse-party officers.
- The Court of Appeals (Apr. 15, 2008 decision; Oct. 2, 2008 resolution) dismissed petitioners’ certiorari petition, affirming the RTC’s orders and holding that (a) proper notice of hearing was required under Rule 15, Secs. 4–5, and (b) under Rule 25, Sec 6, failure to serve written interrogatories barred compelling adverse-party testimony.
Issues:
- Whether a motion for subpoena duces tecum ad testificandum requires notice and hearing under Rule 15, Sections 4 and 5.
- Whether petitioners must first serve written interrogatories on Metrobank’s officers before compelling their court testimony under Rule 25, Section 6.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)