Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Afulugencia Vs MBTC
Afulugencia Vs MBTC
SUPREME COURT
Manila
SECOND DIVISION
FACTS
Petitioners, Spouses Afulgencia, filed a Complaint for nullification of mortgage,
foreclosure, auction sale, certificate of sale and other documents, with damages, against
respondents Metropolitan Bank Trust Co. (MBTC) before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of
Malolos City.
After filing of the pleadings of parties, petitioners filed a Motion for Issuance of
Subpoena Duces Tecum Ad Testificandum addressed to the respondents. The respondents
filed an Opposition invoking Sections 1 and 6 of Rule 25 of the Rules of Court. Petitioners
submitted a Reply to the respondents’ Opposition. The RTC denied the Motion for Issuance
of Subpoena Duces Tecum Ad Testificandum.
Subsequently, the petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration pleading for
leniency in the application of the Rules and claiming that the defective notice was cured by
the filing of Metrobank’s Opposition which they claim tantamount to notice. The said
Motion was denied by the RTC.
Petitioners filed for a Certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA) asserting that their
Motion for Issuance of Subpoena Duces Tecum Ad Testificandum is not a litigated motion,
it does not seek relief but aims for the issuance of a mere process. More so, the CA
dismissed the petition for lack of merit.
Petitioners filed their Motion for Reconsideration which the CA also denied in its
Resolution. Aggrieved, they filed the present petition before the Supreme Court.
ISSUE
Whether or not the Court of Appeals committed error in holding that the petitioners
must first serve written interrogatories to respondent’s officers before they can be
sunpoenaed.
RULING
Respondent bank was notified of the Motion of Issuance of Subpoena Duces Tecum
Ad Testificandum, since they filed the Opposition in time. The technical defect of lack of
notice of hearing was cured upon the filing of the said Opposition.
As officers of the adverse party Metrobank are being compelled to testify as the
calling party’s main witnesses. Similarly, they are also tasked to bring with them documents
which shall comprise the petitioners’ principal evidence. In civil cases, it is a rule found on
Section 6 of Rule 25 of the Rules of Court that the procedure of calling the adverse party to
the witness stand is not allowed, unless written interrogatories are first served upon them.
This certain provision of the Rules of Court does not only protect the adverse party
from unwarranted surprises or harassment nut also prevents the calling party from
conducting a fishing expedition or incompetent its own case.
According to the Supreme Court, it is improper that the petitioners seek to call the
respondent’s officers to the witness stand as their initial and main witnesses and to present
documents in Metrobank’s possession as part of their principal documentary evidence. The
burden of proof and evidence falls on petitioners, not on Metrobank and if petitioners cannot
prove their claim using their own evidence, then the adverse party Metrobank may not be
pressured to hang itself from its own defense. What petitioners seek, goes against the very
principles of justice and fair play. They may not be allowed to ask for Metrobank to provide
the very evidence with which to prosecute and build their case from the start.
One of the causes of action in the petitioners Complaint is that they were not
furnished with specific documents relative to their loan agreement with Metrobank at the
time they obtained the loan and while it was outstanding. If Metrobank were to willingly
provide petitioners with these documents even before petitioners can present evidence to
show that indeed they were never furnished the same, any inferences generated from this
would certainly not be admitting that indeed, it did not furnish petitioners with these
documents prior to the signing of the loan agreement, and while the loan was outstanding, in
violation of the law.
The Petition for Certiorari is denied and the Decision and Resolution of the CA are
affirmed.