Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • PNB vs. Court of Appeals and Atty. Mordeno Cua, G.R. No. 126153, January 14, 2004

    Uploaded by

    Khenlie Villaceran
    556 views1 page
    The Court denied the petition of PNB Manila against Atty. Mordeno Cua and the Court of Appeals. PNB Manila claimed that Atty. Cua withdrew funds that were transferred to his account from PNB Cagayan de Oro. However, the Court ruled that Cua's denial of withdrawing the funds was not sufficiently specific as required by the Rules of Court, since he would have knowledge of the transactions done on his account. Matters that are within a defendant's knowledge cannot be denied based on lack of information. Thus, Cua's denial did not comply with the rules and the material allegations in the complaint were deemed admitted.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    70. PNB vs. Court of Appeals and Atty. Mordeno Cua, G.R. No. 126153, January 14, 2004

    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
    The Court denied the petition of PNB Manila against Atty. Mordeno Cua and the Court of Appeals. PNB Manila claimed that Atty. Cua withdrew funds that were transferred to his account from PNB Cagayan de Oro. However, the Court ruled that Cua's denial of withdrawing the funds was not sufficiently specific as required by the Rules of Court, since he would have knowledge of the transactions done on his account. Matters that are within a defendant's knowledge cannot be denied based on lack of information. Thus, Cua's denial did not comply with the rules and the material allegations in the complaint were deemed admitted.

    Copyright:

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

    PNB vs. Court of Appeals and Atty. Mordeno Cua, G.R. No. 126153, January 14, 2004

    Uploaded by

    Khenlie Villaceran
    The Court denied the petition of PNB Manila against Atty. Mordeno Cua and the Court of Appeals. PNB Manila claimed that Atty. Cua withdrew funds that were transferred to his account from PNB Cagayan de Oro. However, the Court ruled that Cua's denial of withdrawing the funds was not sufficiently specific as required by the Rules of Court, since he would have knowledge of the transactions done on his account. Matters that are within a defendant's knowledge cannot be denied based on lack of information. Thus, Cua's denial did not comply with the rules and the material allegations in the complaint were deemed admitted.

    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

    70. 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.

    Hence, petition is denied.

    You might also like