Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Government Service Insurance System v. CA

    Uploaded by

    Man2x Salomon
    124 views1 page
    This case involved a dispute between GSIS and several banks over a loan default by Domsat. GSIS sought to subpoena documents from one of the banks regarding the loan proceeds. The trial court initially denied motions to quash the subpoena but later granted a second motion for reconsideration filed by the banks, quashing the subpoena. GSIS argued the second motion was defective for lacking notice of hearing. The Court of Appeals found the trial court did not gravely abuse its discretion in considering the second motion, as it properly resorted to liberal interpretation of the rules to avoid miscarriage of justice, and GSIS waived the defect by not raising it in its opposition.

    Original Description:

    Government Service Insurance System v. CA case digest; law files; remedial law

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    This case involved a dispute between GSIS and several banks over a loan default by Domsat. GSIS sought to subpoena documents from one of the banks regarding the loan proceeds. The trial court initially denied motions to quash the subpoena but later granted a second motion for reconsideration filed by the banks, quashing the subpoena. GSIS argued the second motion was defective for lacking notice of hearing. The Court of Appeals found the trial court did not gravely abuse its discretion in considering the second motion, as it properly resorted to liberal interpretation of the rules to avoid miscarriage of justice, and GSIS waived the defect by not raising it in its opposition.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    124 views1 page

    Government Service Insurance System v. CA

    Uploaded by

    Man2x Salomon
    This case involved a dispute between GSIS and several banks over a loan default by Domsat. GSIS sought to subpoena documents from one of the banks regarding the loan proceeds. The trial court initially denied motions to quash the subpoena but later granted a second motion for reconsideration filed by the banks, quashing the subpoena. GSIS argued the second motion was defective for lacking notice of hearing. The Court of Appeals found the trial court did not gravely abuse its discretion in considering the second motion, as it properly resorted to liberal interpretation of the rules to avoid miscarriage of justice, and GSIS waived the defect by not raising it in its opposition.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    G.R. No.

    189206, June 8, 2011

    Government Service Insurance System, Petitioner, vs.


    THE HONORABLE 15TH DIVISION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS and
    INDUSTRIAL BANK OF KOREA, et al., Respondents.

    FACTS:
    When Domsat failed to pay the loan, GSIS refused to comply with its
    obligation reasoning that Domsat did not use the loan proceeds for the payment of
    rental for the satellite. The Banks filed a complaint before the RTC of Makati
    against Domsat and GSIS.
    In the course of the hearing, GSIS requested for the issuance of a subpoena
    duces tecum to the custodian of records of Westmont Bank to produce documents.
    The RTC issued a subpoena decus tecum. A motion to quash was filed by
    the banks. Domsat also joined the banks’ motion to quash. On 9 April 2003, the
    RTC issued an Order denying the motion to quash for lack of merit. Another Order
    was issued by the RTC denying the motion for reconsideration filed by the banks.
    The trial court granted the second motion for reconsideration filed by the banks.
    The previous subpoenas issued were consequently quashed. The motion for
    reconsideration filed by GSIS was denied.

    ISSUE:
    Whether or not the judge acted with grave abuse of discretion when it
    favorably considered respondent banks’ (second) Motion for Reconsideration
    dated July 9, 2003 despite the fact that it did not contain a notice of hearing and
    was therefore a mere scrap of paper.

    RATIO DECIDENDI:
    No. The judge did not act with grave abuse of discretion.
    The Court of Appeals resorted to a liberal interpretation of the rules to avoid
    miscarriage of justice when it allowed the filing and acceptance of the second
    motion for reconsideration. The appellate court also underscored the fact that GSIS
    did not raise the defect of lack of notice in its opposition to the second motion for
    reconsideration. The appellate court held that failure to timely object to the
    admission of a defective motion is considered a waiver of its right to do so.
    The appellate court maintained that the judge may, in the exercise of his
    sound discretion, grant the second motion for reconsideration despite its being pro
    forma. The appellate court correctly relied on precedents where the Supreme Court
    set aside technicality in favor of substantive justice. Furthermore, the appellate
    court accurately pointed out that petitioner did not assail the defect of lack of
    notice in its opposition to the second motion of reconsideration, thus it can be
    considered a waiver of the defect.

    You might also like