Replace the SPS on your Celerra NX4Full description
lawFull description
DamagesFull description
Ejemplos spsDescripción completa
mercadosDescripción completa
salesFull description
Pnb vs. Sps Cheah CASE DIGESTFull description
SPS
Full description
modelo spsDescripción completa
Deskripsi lengkap
Constitutional Law 2Full description
soal ujianFull description
case digest
Civil Review case: Maybank v. Tarrosa Topic: Delay
G.R. No. 167615; January 11, 2016
DigestFull description
Sps. Afulugencia v. Metrobank (February 5, 2014
Sps. Afulugencia v Metrobank (2014) Petition: Review on Certiorari Petitioner: Sps. Petitioner: Sps. Vicente Afulugencia and Leticia Afulugencia Responent: Metropolitan Bank and Trust Co. and Emmanuel rtega! Clerk of Court" RTC and E#"o$cio S%eri& Bulacan Ponencia: 'el Castillo !"#$R%&': Section Rule 2*: of 2*: of t%e Rules of Court provides t%at (a part) not served with written interrogatories may not be compelled by the adverse party to give testimony in open court, or to give a deposition pending appeal .( appeal .( T%e provision seeks to prevent to prevent +s,ing e-peitions an neeless elas. *ts goal is to maintain order and facilitate t%e conduct of trial. /A#$S: +. Sps Afulugencia! Afulugencia! ,led a Complaint Complaint for nulli,cation nulli,cation of mortgage! mortgage! foreclosur foreclosure! e! auction sale! certi,cate of sale and ot%er documents! wit% damages! against respondents Metropolitan Bank - Trust Co. Metro/ank0 and Emmanuel L. rtega rtega0 /efore t%e RTC of Malolos Cit). +. METRBA1 METRBA123 23 is a domestic /anking /anking corporati corporation on e#isting e#isting under 4%ilip 4%ilippine pine laws 5. RTE6A3 RTE6A3 is t%e Clerk Clerk of Court and E#"$cio E#"$cio S%eri& of t%e Malolos Malolos RTC. RTC. 5. After t%e ,ling of t%e parties7 parties7 pleadings pleadings and wit% t%e conclusion of pre"trial! pre"trial! petitioners ,led a Motion for %ssuance of Subpoena !uces $ecu $ecu A $esti+canu to $esti+canu to require Metrobank’s ofcers to appear and testiy as as the petitioners’ initial witnesses during witnesses during t%e August 8+! 599: %earing for t%e presentation presentation of t%eir evidence"in"c%ief! evidence"in"c%ief! and to /ring t%e documents relative to t%eir loan wit% Metro/ank! as well as t%ose covering t%e e#tra;udicial foreclosure and sale of petitioners7 599"sMotion ine&ective 611 o o ule !" Metro/ank7s !" Metro/ank7s and pro forma= t%at pursuant to Sections 1 and 611 o$cers ? w%o are considered adverse parties ? cannot /e compelled to appear and testif) in court for t%e petitioners since t%e) were not initiall) served wit% written interrogatories= Sps Afulugencia3 Afulugencia3 Repl)3 lack of a proper notice of %earing was cure /) cure /) t%e liberalit= ,ling of Metro/ank7s pposition= t%at appl)ing t%e principle of liberalit= eave of court is court is not necessar) for t%e taking of Metro/ank7s o$cers7 depositions= Su/poena is actuall) favora/le to Metro/ank snce t%e will /e a/le to present testimon)@ evidence of its o$cers and t%at t%e documents are relevant as to prove if t%eir o/ligations were indeed paid in full" t%is will settle t%e issue relative to t%e validit) or invalidit) of t%e foreclosure proceedings= Rules do not pro%i/it a part) from presenting t%e adverse part) as its own witness.
4. R$#: issued an rder ening petitioners7 ening petitioners7 Motion for *ssuance of Su/poena 'uces Tecum Ad Testi,candum3 T%e motion lacks merit. +. Motion Motion unde underr consid considera eratio tion n is a ere scrap of paper b reason of its failure to copl it, t,e re3uireents for a vali notice of ,earing as ,earing as speci,ed in Sections # and " o ule ule 1"
5. Bank and o$cers are adverse parties" cannot be suone to testif unless ritten interrogatories are +rst serve upon t%em! as provided in Sections 1 and 6, ule !" . Sps Afulugencia3 iled an MR: pleading for lenienc) in t%e application of t%e Rules= efective notice as cure b t ,e +ling of Metrobanks "pposition w%ic% is tantamount to notice. Metro/ank7s o$cers ? w%o are t%e su/;ect of t%e su/poena ? are not part"defendants> not adverse part)= t%e) are individuals separate and distinct from Metro/ank! t%e defendant corporation /eing sued in t%e case. :. MR opposed /) Metro/ank3 procedural defect of improper notice of %earing! Rule is MA1'ATR A1' MDST BE STR*CTL BSERVE'. +. Rule 2*3 none of its o$cers ma) /e summoned to testif) for petitioners unless written interrogatories are ,rst served upon t%em. Corporation ma) act onl) t%roug% its o$cers and emplo)ees! t%e) are to /e consiere as averse parties in a case against t%e corporation itself. . $#3 rder April 599! 'E1*E' petitioners7 MR3 +. Even if t%e motion is given consideration /) rela#ing Sections 4 an * Rule 1* of t%e Rules of Court! 1 LAF*T is allowed to Sections 1 an of Rule 2*3 re
+. K@1 CA committed reversi/le errors in re3uiring notice an ,earing Secs. H and ! Rule +0 or a mere motion or subpoena of respondent /ank7s o$cers w%en suc% re
a. Sec. :. E&ect of failure to serve written interrogatories3 Dnless allowed /) t%e court f or good cause shown and to prevent a ailure o (ustice! a part) not served wit% written interrogatories may not be compelled by the adverse party to give testimony in open court! or to give a deposition pending appeal. H. REAS1 R RED*R*16 RDLE3 a. *f a part) cannot elicit facts or information useful to its case t%roug% t%e facilit) of written interrogatories or ot%er mode of discover)! t%en t%e calling of t%e adverse part) to t%e witness stand coul onl serve to eaken its on case as a result of t,e calling parts being boun b t,e averse parts testion ! w%ic% ma) onl) /e wort%less and instead detrimental to t%e calling part)7s cause. /. Anot%er reason for t%e rule is t%at /) re