Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Government Service Insurance System v. CA
Government Service Insurance System v. CA
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.