Case Summary (A.M. No. 2005-03-SC)
Factual Background
Rafael Ma. Guerrero filed a complaint for damages against Manufacturers Hanover Trust Co. and/or Chemical Bank alleging illegally withheld taxes on interest, wrongful dishonor of a US$18,000 check for signature verification problems, and unauthorized conversion of his account. The complaint was amended. The Bank answered and asserted that the parties’ account agreement stipulated the application of New York law, which, the Bank alleged, precludes recovery except for actual damages.
Trial Court Proceedings
Manufacturers Hanover Trust Co. and/or Chemical Bank moved for partial summary judgment under Section 2, Rule 34 of the old Rules of Court to dismiss Guerrero’s claims for consequential, nominal, temperate, moral and exemplary damages and attorneys’ fees. The motion was supported by the affidavit of Alyssa Walden, a New York attorney, which was authenticated by the Philippine Consular Office in New York. The RTC denied the motion and denied reconsideration, concluding that the affidavit did not establish the absence of genuine issues of fact and did not properly prove New York law as required by the Rules on Evidence.
Court of Appeals Decision
Rafael Ma. Guerrero prevailed in the petition for certiorari filed by the Bank in the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals sustained the RTC’s rulings, holding that the Walden affidavit did not constitute proper proof of New York law and jurisprudence. The Court of Appeals treated the foreign law and foreign decisions the Bank sought to prove as public documents within Section 19, Rule 132, and directed that the procedure in Section 24, Rule 132 be followed to admit such proof.
Issues Presented by Petitioners
Manufacturers Hanover Trust Co. and/or Chemical Bank argued that the Court of Appeals erred in (1) holding that the Bank could not rely on the Walden affidavit to prove facts in support of its motion for summary judgment; and (2) ruling that the affidavit constituted hearsay and therefore could not prove New York law. The Bank further contended that summary judgment practice under Rule 35 (old Rules) permits reliance on affidavits and that Guerrero’s failure to file an opposing affidavit amounted to an admission of the Walden affidavit’s statements.
Parties’ Contentions
Manufacturers Hanover Trust Co. and/or Chemical Bank maintained that the Walden affidavit established as a matter of law that New York law bars recovery except for actual damages and that Guerrero offered no opposing affidavit to create a genuine issue. Rafael Ma. Guerrero opposed the motion and argued that the affidavit failed to prove foreign law under the procedural requirements of Rule 132, that the affidavit was self-serving and conclusory, and that material allegations in his complaint remained controverted and thus required trial.
Supreme Court’s Ruling
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals’ Decision dated August 24, 1998 and Resolution dated December 14, 1998. The Court held that the Bank failed to prove the New York law and jurisprudence it relied upon and that the Walden affidavit, taken ex parte abroad and not presented as live testimony in open court, did not satisfy the mode of proving foreign law prescribed by Section 24, Rule 132. The Court also ruled that the Bank did not show the absence of genuine issues of fact as required for summary judgment.
Legal Basis and Reasoning
The Court restated the standard for summary judgment under Section 2, Rule 34: the moving party must demonstrate by pleadings, depositions, admissions and affidavits that no important issues of fact exist except as to damages. The Court observed that Guerrero’s complaint and the Bank’s answer presented opposing ultimate facts and defenses, which gave rise to substantial triable issues. The Court reiterated that foreign law is not a matter of judicial notice and must be alleged and proved like any other fact. Under Section 24, Rule 132, the proper proof of public records or decisions of a foreign sovereign or tribunal is by official publication or a copy attested by the custodian and, if kept abroad, accompanied by a certificate from an authorized Philippine embassy or consular official authenticated by office seal.
The Court examined precedent that permits other competent evidence of foreign law where circumstances warrant, notably Willamette Iron and Steel Works v. Muzzal and Collector of Internal Revenue v. Fisher, in which American attorneys testified in open court and quoted specific foreign statutes. The Court distinguished those authorities, noting that in those cases the evidence consisted of in-court testimony by qualified witnesses and specific verbatim statutory quotations, whereas the Walden affidavit was ex parte, did n
...continue reading
Case Syllabus (A.M. No. 2005-03-SC)
Parties
- Manufacturers Hanover Trust Co. and/or Chemical Bank was the petitioner and movant below seeking partial summary judgment.
- Rafael Ma. Guerrero was the respondent and plaintiff below who filed a complaint for damages.
- The petition for review was filed under Rule 45, Rules of Court to challenge the Court of Appeals' decision affirming the trial court's denial of partial summary judgment.
Facts
- Guerrero filed a complaint alleging illegally withheld taxes on interest, wrongful return of a US$18,000 check due to signature verification, and unauthorized conversion of his account.
- The parties stipulated that the bank account was governed by New York law, and the Bank asserted that New York law barred recovery except for actual damages.
- The Bank filed a motion for partial summary judgment under Section 2, Rule 34 of the old Rules of Court to dismiss claims for consequential, nominal, temperate, moral and exemplary damages and attorneys' fees.
- The motion was supported by an affidavit of Alyssa Walden, a New York attorney (the Walden affidavit), which was authenticated by the Philippine Consular Office in New York.
Procedure
- The Regional Trial Court (RTC) denied the Bank's motion for partial summary judgment and denied its motion for reconsideration.
- The Bank filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition with the Court of Appeals (CA), which dismissed the petition in a Decision dated August 24, 1998, and denied reconsideration on December 14, 1998.
- The Bank then filed the present petition for review under Rule 45 seeking reversal of the CA's affirmance of the RTC orders.
Issues Presented
- Whether the Walden affidavit constituted competent proof of New York law sufficient to support a partial summary judgment dismissing damages other than actual.
- Whether the CA erred in treating the Walden affidavit as hearsay and in applying the proof-of-foreign-law requirements of Rule 132, Sections 19 and 24.
- Whether Guerrero's failure to file an opposing affidavit amounted to an admission of the facts in the Walden affidavit and justified summary judgment.
Contentions
- The Bank contended that the Walden affidavit, being an affidavit of a New York attorney, was admissible under the summary judgment rules and proved that New York law precluded consequential and other non-actual damages.
- The Bank argued that the CA conflated the requirements for summary judgment with trial evidence rules and wrongly treated the Walden affidavit as hearsay.
- The Bank relied on decisions such as Willamette Iron and Steel Works v. Muzzal and Collector of Internal Revenue v. Fisher to show that foreign law may be proved by testimony of attorneys.
Evidence and Proof
- The Walden affidavit summarized New York law on nominal, temperate, consequential, emotional-distress, attorneys' fees, and punitive damages and cited treatises and U.S. cases but did not identify a specific New York statute in full nor a properly attested official record under Section 24, Rule 132.
- The Bank attached copies of some U.S. decisions cited in the Walden affidavit, but those copies did not comply with the attestation and authentication requirements of Section 24, R