Case Summary (G.R. No. 136804)
Petition Before the Supreme Court
The Bank sought review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court of the Court of Appeals’ August 24, 1998 Decision and December 14, 1998 Resolution affirming the trial court’s denial of its motion for partial summary judgment.
Antecedents and Trial Court Proceedings
On May 17, 1994, Guerrero sued the Bank for damages allegedly arising from:
- Illegally withheld taxes on interest from his checking account;
- A returned US$18,000 check due to signature verification;
- Unauthorized conversion of his account.
The Bank answered on September 1, 1995, invoking a stipulation that New York law governs and bars all claims except actual damages. It moved for partial summary judgment to dismiss claims for consequential, nominal, temperate, moral, exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees. Guerrero opposed. The Bank’s New York attorney, Alyssa Walden, submitted an affidavit attesting to New York law, which was authenticated by the Philippine Consular Office in New York. The RTC denied the motion (March 6, 1996) and the motion for reconsideration (July 17, 1996).
Court of Appeals’ Decision
The Court of Appeals dismissed the Bank’s certiorari petition, ruling that:
• The Walden affidavit does not constitute proper proof of New York law and jurisprudence.
• Foreign law must be proved as public documents under Sections 19 and 24, Rule 132 of the Rules on Evidence (by official publication or certified copy with proper embassy or consular certification).
• Rule 34’s supporting affidavit requirement does not dispense with the formal procedure for proving foreign law.
Issues on Appeal
The Bank asserted that the Court of Appeals erred by holding that:
- Its evidentiary proof by affidavit is inadmissible for summary judgment purposes;
- The Walden affidavit is hearsay and cannot establish New York law;
- Guerrero’s failure to file an opposing affidavit precludes any genuine issue of fact.
Supreme Court Ruling on Summary Judgment Standards
Under Section 2, Rule 34 of the old Rules of Court, summary judgment requires a showing—through pleadings, depositions, admissions, and affidavits—that no genuine issue of material fact exists except on damages. A genuine issue is one that demands evidence rather than being contrived. Here, Guerrero’s complaint and the Bank’s answer contain conflicting allegations on the applicability and effect of New York law, establishing triable issues.
Proof of Foreign Law
Foreign law is treated as a fact and must be alleged and proven, as it is not subject to judicial notice. Section 24, Rule 132 mandates proof by official publication or certified copy, accompanied by a custody certificate from authorized Philippine consular or embassy officials. Although exceptions permit other competent evidence (e.g., attorney testimony in open court), such evidence must be presented at trial, not through an ex parte affidavit.
Sufficiency of the Walden Affidavit
The Walden affidavit presents conclusions and opinions about New York law without citing official statutes or certified decisions. Its references to U.S. court cases and treatises are not accompanied by certified copies under Rule 132
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 136804)
Petition for Review and Procedural Posture
- This petition for review under Rule 45 challenges the Court of Appeals’ Decision dated August 24, 1998 and Resolution dated December 14, 1998 in CA-G.R. SP No. 42310.
- The Court of Appeals’ rulings affirmed the Regional Trial Court of Manila’s denial of petitioners’ motion for partial summary judgment.
- Petitioners seek reversal of those rulings to dismiss respondent’s claims for consequential, nominal, temperate, moral and exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees, limiting recovery to actual damages.
Antecedents and Pleadings
- On May 17, 1994, Rafael Ma. Guerrero filed a complaint in the RTC of Manila for:
• Illegally withheld taxes on interest earned in his checking account with Manufacturers Hanover Trust Co. and/or Chemical Bank (“the Bank”);
• Return of a US $18,000 check due to signature-verification problems; and
• Unauthorized conversion of his account. - Guerrero amended his complaint on April 18, 1995.
- On September 1, 1995, the Bank filed its Answer, invoking a stipulation that the account is governed by New York law, which allegedly permits only actual damages.
- The Bank then moved for partial summary judgment under Section 2, Rule 34 of the old Rules of Court to dismiss all claims except actual damages.
- Guerrero opposed the motion. The Bank supported its motion with the affidavit of Alyssa Walden, a New York attorney, authenticated by the Philippine Consular Office in New York.
Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and Supporting Affidavit
- The Bank’s motion sought to strike out Guerrero’s claims for consequential, nominal, temperate, moral, exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees on the ground that New York law bars their recovery.
- The Walden affidavit summarized the affiant’s interpretation of New York law on:
• Nominal damages as trivial sums only when actual damages cannot be proved;
• Absence of a “temperate damages” concept;
• UCC provisions on justifiable refusal to pay checks;
• Restrictive rules on consequential, special and punitive damages;
• Recovery of attorney’s fees only if provided by contract or statute; and
• Punitive damages unavailable for mere breach of contract. - The affidavit did not produce official New York statutes or duly certified judicial decisions.
Rulings of the RTC and the Court of Appeals
- The RTC denied the Bank’s motion for partial summary judgment on March 6, 1996, and likewise denied its motion for reconsideratio