Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Afulugencia Vs MBTC

    Uploaded by

    Jel Aboga
    4 views2 pages

    Original Title

    Afulugencia vs MBTC

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    4 views2 pages

    Afulugencia Vs MBTC

    Uploaded by

    Jel Aboga

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    Republic of the Philippines

    SUPREME COURT
    Manila

    SECOND DIVISION

    SPOUSES VICENTE AFULUGENCIA and LETICIA AFULUGENCIA,


    Petitioners,
    vs.

    METROPOLITAN BANK & TRUST CO. et. al,


    Respondents.

    G.R. No. 185145 February 5, 2014

    DEL CASTILLO, J.:

    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.

    You might also like