Case Digest (G.R. No. 185145)
Facts:
Spouses Vicente Afulugencia and Leticia Afulugencia v. Metropolitan Bank & Trust Co. and Emmanuel L. Ortega, G.R. No. 185145, February 05, 2014, Supreme Court Second Division, Del Castillo, J., writing for the Court.Petitioners Spouses Vicente and Leticia Afulugencia filed a complaint in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Malolos City, Branch 7 (Civil Case No. 336‑M‑2004), against Metropolitan Bank & Trust Co. (Metrobank) and Emmanuel L. Ortega (Clerk of Court and Ex‑Officio Sheriff), seeking nullification of mortgage, foreclosure, auction sale, certificate of sale and other documents, and damages, relating to the extrajudicial foreclosure and sale of their 200‑sqm land (TCT No. 20411 M).
After pre‑trial and before the presentation of evidence‑in‑chief, petitioners filed a Motion for Issuance of Subpoena Duces Tecum Ad Testificandum to compel three Metrobank officers (Oscar L. Abendan, O.L. Cajucom, B.C.T. Reyes) to appear as petitioners’ initial witnesses at the August 31, 2006 hearing and to bring bank documents relating to the loan and foreclosure. The motion’s “notice” was defective (it was addressed informally to the branch clerk and lacked the prescribed hearing date/time).
Metrobank filed an Opposition arguing (1) the motion lacked a proper notice of hearing under Rule 15, Secs. 4–5, (2) the bank’s officers were adverse parties who could not be compelled to testify absent written interrogatories under Rule 25, Secs. 1 and 6, and (3) petitioners were fishing for evidence. Petitioners replied that Metrobank’s Opposition cured the defective notice, invoked liberality in applying the Rules, and contended the officers were not adverse parties but mere employees.
The RTC denied the motion on October 19, 2006 for lack of a valid notice and for failure to comply with Rule 25, Sec. 6, and denied reconsideration on April 17, 2007, reiterating that bank officers represent the corporation and fall within Rule 25’s protection. Petitioners elevated the matter to the Court of Appeals (CA) via petition for certiorari. The CA, in a Decision dated April 15, 2008 (CA‑G.R. SP No. 99535), dismissed the petition for lack of merit and affirmed the RTC orders, holding the motion to be litigated and that petitioners’ failure to serve written interrogatories precluded compelling testimony; the CA denied reconsideration on October 2, 2008.
Petitioners then filed this Petition for Review on Certiorari under ...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals commit reversible error in requiring notice and hearing under Sections 4 and 5, Rule 15, for petitioners’ motion for subpoena duces tecum/ad testificandum?
- Did the Court of Appeals err in holding that petitioners must first serve written interrogatories on Metrobank’s officers before subpoenaing them to te...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)