Afulugencia Vs Metropolitan Bank

10. SPOUSES VICENTE AFULUGENCIAand LETICIA AFULUGENCIA,-versus - METROPOLITAN BANK & TRUST CO. and EMMANUEL L.
ORTEGA, Clerk of Court, Regional Trial Court and ExOfficio Sheriff, Province of Bulacan, G.R. No. 185145 Feb 5, 2014
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 respondents Metropolitan Bank & Trust Co. and Emmanuel L. Ortega before the Regional Trial Court of Malolos City, Metrobank is a domestic banking corporation existing under Philippine laws, while Ortega is the Clerk of Court and Ex-Officio Sheriff of the Malolos RTC. After the filing of the parties pleadings and with the conclusion of pre-trial, petitioners filed a Motion for Issuance of Subpoena Duces Tecum Ad Testificandum to require Metrobanks officers to appear and testify as the petitioners initial witnesses during the August 31, 2006 hearing for the presentation of their evidence-in-chief, and to bring the documents relative to their loan with Metrobank, as well as those covering the extrajudicial foreclosure and sale of petitioners 200 -square meter land in Meycauayan, Bulacan Metrobank filed an Opposition10 arguing that for lack of a proper notice of hearing, the Motion must be denied; that being a litigated motion, the failure of petitioners to set a date and time for the hearing renders the Motion ineffective and that pursuant to Sections 1 and 611 of Rule 25 of the Rules, Metrobanks officers who are considered adverse parties may not be compelled to appear and testify in court for the petitioners since they were not initially served with written interrogatories. Petitioners submitted a Reply12 to Metrobanks Opposition, stating that the lack of a proper notice of hearing was cured by the filing of Metrobanks Opposition; that applying the principle of liberality, On October 19, 2006, the trial court issued an Order13 denying petitioners Motion for Issuance of Subpoena Duces Tecum Ad Testificandum, thus: Petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration15 pleading for leniency in the application of the Rules and claiming that the defective notice was cured by the filing of Metrobanks Opposition, which they claim is tantamount to notice In an Opposition16 to the Motion for Reconsideration, Metrobank insisted on the procedural defect of improper notice of hearing, arguing that the rule relative to motions and the requirement of a valid notice of hearing are mandatory and must be strictly observed. The trial court denied petitioners Motion for Reconsideration. Petitioners filed a Petition for Certiorari with the CA asserting this time that their Motion for Issuance of Subpoena is not a litigated motion; it does not seek relief, but aims for the issuance of a mere process. For these reasons, the Motion need not be heard. The CA dismissed the petition Praying that the assailed CA dispositions be set aside and that the Court allow the issuance of the subpoena, petitioners assert that the questioned Motion is not a litigated motion, since it seeks not a relief, but the issuance of process. They insist that a motion which is subject to notice and hearing under Sections 4 and 5 of Rule 15 is an application for relief other than a pleading; since no relief is sought but just the process of subpoena, the hearing and notice requirements may be done away with. Petitioners add that the Rules should have been liberally construed in their favor, and that Metrobanks filing of its Opposition be considered to have cured whatever defect the Motion suffered from.
Metrobank essentially argues in its Comment30 that the subject Motion for the issuance of a subpoena is a litigated motion, especially as it is directed toward its officers, whose testimony and documentary evidence would affect it as the adverse party in the civil case. Thus, the lack of a proper notice of hearing renders it useless and a mere scrap of paper. Issue: WON the ca committed reversible errors in requiring notice and hearing for a mere motion for subpoena of respondent banks officers when such requirements apply only to deposition under sec. 6, rule 25, rules of court. Held: The Court denies the Petition. On the procedural issue, it is quite clear that Metrobank was notified of the Motion for Issuance of Subpoena; in fact, it filed a timely Opposition thereto. The technical defect of lack of notice of hearing was thus cured by the filing of the Opposition. As a rule, in civil cases, the procedure of calling the adverse party to the witness stand is not allowed, unless written interrogatories are first served upon the latter. This is embodied in Section 6, Rule 25 of the Rules One of the purposes of the above rule is to prevent fishing expeditions and needless delays; it is there to maintain order and facilitate the conduct of trial. It will be presumed that a party who does not serve written interrogatories on the adverse party beforehand will most likely be unable to elicit facts useful to its case if it later opts to call the adverse party to the witness stand as its witness. Instead, the process could be treated as a fishing expedition or an attempt at delaying the proceedings. Another reason for the rule is that by requiring prior written interrogatories, the court may limit the inquiry to what is relevant, and thus prevent the calling party from straying or harassing the adverse party when it takes the latter to the stand. Thus, the rule not only protects the adverse party from unwarranted surprises or harassment; it likewise prevents the calling party from conducting a fishing expedition or bungling its own case. In the present case, petitioners seek to c all Metrobanks officers to the witness stand as their initial and main witnesses, and to present documents in Metrobanks possession as part of their principal documentary evidence. This is improper. Petitioners may not be allowed, at the incipient phase of the presentation of their evidence-in-chief at that, to present Metrobanks officers who are considered adverse parties as well, based on the principle that corporations act only through their officers and duly authorized agents34 as their main witnesses; nor may they be allowed to gain access to Metrobanks documentary evidence for the purpose of making it their own. This is tantamount to building their whole case from the evidence of their opponent. The burden of proof and evidence falls on petitioners, not on Metrobank; if petitioners cannot prove their claim using their own evidence, then the adverse party Metrobank may not be pressured to hang itself from its own defense. It is true that under the Rules, a party may, for good cause shown and to prevent a failure of justice, be compelled to give testimony in court by the adverse party who has not served written interrogatories. But what petitioners seek goes against the very principles of justice and fair play; they would want that Metrobank provide the very evidence with which to prosecute and build their case from the start. This they may not be allowed to do.

Afulugencia Vs Metropolitan Bank

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Afulugencia Vs Metropolitan Bank

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Afulugencia Vs Metropolitan Bank

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

10. SPOUSES VICENTE AFULUGENCIAand LETICIA AFULUGENCIA,-versus - METROPOLITAN BANK & TRUST CO. and EMMANUEL L.

You might also like