Professional Documents
Culture Documents
PNB vs. Court of Appeals and Atty. Mordeno Cua, G.R. No. 126153, January 14, 2004
PNB vs. Court of Appeals and Atty. Mordeno Cua, G.R. No. 126153, January 14, 2004
FACTS:
PNB Manila was notified that the account was not carried or maintained by PNB Cagayan de
Oro. With this Notice, it was later discovered that said Account No. 16087 was carried with PCI Bank
Cagayan de Oro in the name of CENTER FOR ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL STUDIES (CESS) with
the Defendant Mordeno Cua as the sole signatory. It was transferred to PCI Bank Cagayan De Oro,
however, upon request for PCI Bank Cagayan de Oro to return the amount thus transferred and
delivered, the PNB was informed that the whole amount was already withdrawn by Mordeno Cua,
the sole signatory for the Center for Economic and Social Studies.
Thereafter, requests both verbal and written were made upon the defendant Mordeno Cua to
restitute the amount of $14,056.25 but all efforts failed as Mordeno Cua refused and continue to
refuse to restitute or make necessary arrangement for the restitution.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the Cua actually withdrew the whole amount is within the knowledge of PCI
Bank Cagayan De Oro is within the knowledge or control of Cua being the sole signatory to the said
CESS Account.
RULING:
No.
Rule 8, Section 10 of the Rules of Court, as amended, require a defendant to specify each
material allegations of fact, the truth of which he does not admit, and whenever practicable, to set
forth the substance of the matters upon which he relies to support his denial. Where a defendant
desires to deny part of an averment for a qualification thereof, he is mandated to specify so much of
the averment as true and material and shall deny the remainder. If a defendant is without knowledge
or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of a material averment in the complaint, he is
bound to so state and this shall have the effect of a denial. In such a case, it is indispensable that
the matter regarding where lack of knowledge is alleged be clearly set forth so that the adverse party
is informed of what is denied. The purpose of requiring the defendant to make a specific denial is to
make him disclose the matters alleged in the complaint which he succinctly intends to disprove at
the trial, together with the matter which he relied upon to support the denial. The parties are
compelled to lay their cards on the table.
A denial is not specific simply because it is so qualified by the defendant. A general denial
does not become specific by the use of the word "specifically." When the matters of whether the
defendant alleges having no knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief, are plainly and
necessarily within the defendant’s knowledge, his alleged ignorance or lack of information will not be
considered as a specific denial.16 Section 11, Rule 8 of the said Rule, provides that material
averments in the complaint other than those as to the amount of unliquidated damages shall be
deemed admitted when not specifically denied.