ThisisGoogle'scacheofhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/feb2003/136804.htm.

Itisasnapshotofthe
pageasitappearedon12Aug201600:52:07GMT.
Thecurrentpagecouldhavechangedinthemeantime.Learnmore
Fullversion

Textonlyversion

Viewsource

Tip:Toquicklyfindyoursearchtermonthispage,pressCtrl+ForF(Mac)andusethefindbar.

FIRSTDIVISION

[G.R.No.136804.February19,2003]

MANUFACTURERS HANOVER TRUST CO. and/or CHEMICAL BANK, petitioners,

vs.RAFAELMA.GUERRERO,respondent.
DECISION
CARPIO,J.:

TheCase
ThisisapetitionforreviewunderRule45oftheRulesofCourttosetasidetheCourtofAppeals[1]
DecisionofAugust24,1998andResolutionofDecember14,1998inCAG.R.SPNo.42310[2]affirming
thetrialcourtsdenialofpetitionersmotionforpartialsummaryjudgment.
TheAntecedents
On May 17, 1994, respondent Rafael Ma. Guerrero (Guerrero for brevity) filed a complaint for
damages against petitioner Manufacturers Hanover Trust Co. and/or Chemical Bank (the Bank for
brevity)withtheRegionalTrialCourtofManila(RTCforbrevity).Guerrerosoughtpaymentofdamages
allegedlyfor(1)illegallywithheldtaxeschargedagainstinterestsonhischeckingaccountwiththeBank
(2)areturnedcheckworthUS$18,000.00duetosignatureverificationproblemsand(3)unauthorized
conversionofhisaccount.GuerreroamendedhiscomplaintonApril18,1995.
OnSeptember1, 1995, the Bank filed its Answer alleging,interalia, that by stipulation Guerreros
account is governed by New York law and this law does not permit any of Guerreros claims except
actual damages. Subsequently, the Bank filed a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment seeking the
dismissalofGuerrerosclaimsforconsequential,nominal,temperate,moralandexemplarydamagesas
well as attorneys fees on the same ground alleged in its Answer. The Bank contended that the trial
shouldbelimitedtotheissueofactualdamages.Guerreroopposedthemotion.
The affidavit of Alyssa Walden, a New York attorney, supported the Banks Motion for Partial
SummaryJudgment.Alyssa Waldens affidavit (Walden affidavit for brevity) stated that Guerreros New
York bank account stipulated that the governing law is New York law and that this law bars all of
Guerrerosclaimsexceptactualdamages.ThePhilippineConsularOfficeinNewYorkauthenticatedthe
Waldenaffidavit.

TheRTCdeniedtheBanksMotionforPartialSummaryJudgmentanditsmotionforreconsideration
onMarch6,1996andJuly17,1996,respectively.TheBankfiledapetitionforcertiorariandprohibition
withtheCourtofAppealsassailingtheRTCOrders.InitsDecisiondatedAugust24,1998,theCourtof
Appealsdismissedthepetition.OnDecember14,1998,theCourtofAppealsdeniedtheBanksmotion
forreconsideration.
Hence,theinstantpetition.
TheRulingoftheCourtofAppeals
TheCourtofAppealssustainedtheRTCordersdenyingthemotionforpartialsummaryjudgment.
TheCourtofAppealsruledthattheWaldenaffidavitdoesnotserveasproofoftheNewYorklawand
jurisprudence relied on by the Bank to support its motion. The Court of Appeals considered the New
York law and jurisprudence as public documents defined in Section 19, Rule 132 of the Rules on
Evidence,asfollows:
SEC.19.ClassesofDocuments.Forthepurposeoftheirpresentaoninevidence,documentsareeitherpublicor
private.
Publicdocumentsare:
(a)Thewrienocialacts,orrecordsoftheocialactsofthesovereignauthority,ocialbodiesand
tribunals,andpublicocers,whetherofthePhilippines,orofaforeigncountry;
xxx.
TheCourtofAppealsopinedthatthefollowingprocedureoutlinedinSection24,Rule132shouldbe
followedinprovingforeignlaw:
SEC.24.Proofofocialrecord.Therecordofpublicdocumentsreferredtoinparagraph(a)ofSecon19,when
admissibleforanypurpose,maybeevidencedbyanocialpublicaonthereoforbyacopyaestedbythe
ocerhavingthelegalcustodyoftherecord,orbyhisdeputy,andaccompanied,iftherecordisnotkeptinthe
Philippines,withacercatethatsuchocerhasthecustody.Iftheoceinwhichtherecordiskeptisina
foreigncountry,thecercatemaybemadebyasecretaryoftheembassyorlegaon,consulgeneral,consul,
viceconsul,orconsularagentorbyanyocerintheforeignserviceofthePhilippinesstaonedintheforeign
countryinwhichtherecordiskept,andauthencatedbythesealofhisoce.
TheCourtofAppealslikewiserejectedtheBanksargumentthatSection2,Rule34oftheoldRules
ofCourtallowstheBanktomovewiththesupportingWaldenaffidavitforpartialsummaryjudgmentin
itsfavor.TheCourtofAppealsclarifiedthattheWaldenaffidavitisnotthesupportingaffidavitreferredto
in Section 2, Rule 34 that would prove the lack of genuine issue between the parties. The Court of
Appeals concluded that even if the Walden affidavit is used for purposes of summary judgment, the
BankmuststillcomplywiththeprocedureprescribedbytheRulestoprovetheforeignlaw.
TheIssues
TheBankcontendsthattheCourtofAppealscommittedreversibleerrorin
xxxHOLDINGTHAT[THEBANKS]PROOFOFFACTSTOSUPPORTITSMOTIONFORSUMMARYJUDGMENTMAY
NOTBEGIVENBYAFFIDAVIT;

xxxHOLDINGTHAT[THEBANKS]AFFIDAVIT,WHICHPROVESFOREIGNLAWASAFACT,ISHEARSAYANDTHEREBY
CANNOTSERVEASPROOFOFTHENEWYORKLAWRELIEDUPONBYPETITIONERSINTHEIRMOTIONFOR
SUMMARYJUDGMENTxxx.[3]
First, the Bank argues that in moving for partial summary judgment, it was entitled to use the
Walden affidavit to prove that the stipulated foreign law bars the claims for consequential, moral,
temperate, nominal and exemplary damages and attorneys fees. Consequently, outright dismissal by
summaryjudgmentoftheseclaimsiswarranted.
Second, the Bank claims that the Court of Appeals mixed up the requirements of Rule 35 on
summary judgments and those of a trial on the merits in considering the Walden affidavit as hearsay.
TheBankpointsoutthattheWaldenaffidavitisnothearsaysinceRule35expresslypermitstheuseof
affidavits.
Lastly,theBankarguesthatsinceGuerrerodidnotsubmitanyopposingaffidavittorefutethefacts
containedintheWaldenaffidavit,hefailedtoshowtheneedforatrialonhisclaimsfordamagesother
thanactual.
TheCourtsRuling
Thepetitionisdevoidofmerit.
The Bank filed its motion for partial summary judgment pursuant to Section 2, Rule 34 of the old
RulesofCourtwhichreads:
Secon2.Summaryjudgmentfordefendingparty.Apartyagainstwhomaclaim,counterclaim,orcrossclaimis
assertedoradeclaratoryreliefissoughtmay,atanyme,movewithsupporngadavitsforasummary
judgmentinhisfavorastoalloranypartthereof.
Acourtmaygrantasummaryjudgmenttosettleexpeditiouslyacaseif,onmotionofeitherparty,
thereappearsfromthepleadings,depositions,admissions,andaffidavitsthatnoimportantissuesoffact
areinvolved,excepttheamountofdamages.Insuchevent,themovingpartyisentitledtoajudgment
asamatteroflaw.[4]
In a motion for summary judgment, the crucial question is: are the issues raised in the pleadings
genuine, sham or fictitious, as shown by affidavits, depositions or admissions accompanying the
motion?[5]
Agenuineissuemeansanissueoffactwhichcallsforthepresentationofevidenceasdistinguished
fromanissuewhichisfictitiousorcontrivedsoasnottoconstituteagenuineissuefortrial.[6]
Aperusalofthepartiesrespectivepleadingswouldshowthattherearegenuineissuesoffactthat
necessitateformaltrial.GuerreroscomplaintbeforetheRTCcontainsastatementoftheultimatefacts
on which he relies for his claim for damages.He is seeking damages for what he asserts as illegally
withheldtaxeschargedagainstinterestsonhischeckingaccountwiththeBank,areturnedcheckworth
US$18,000.00duetosignatureverificationproblems,andunauthorizedconversionofhisaccount.Inits
Answer,theBanksetupitsdefensethattheagreedforeignlawtogoverntheircontractualrelationbars
therecoveryofdamagesotherthanactual.Apparently,factsareassertedinGuerreroscomplaintwhile
specificdenialsandaffirmativedefensesaresetoutintheBanksanswer.
True, the court can determine whether there are genuine issues in a case based merely on the
affidavitsorcounteraffidavitssubmittedbythepartiestothecourt.However,as correctlyruled bythe
CourtofAppeals,theBanksmotionforpartialsummaryjudgmentassupportedbytheWaldenaffidavit
does not demonstrate that Guerreros claims are sham, fictitious or contrived. On the contrary, the

Walden affidavit shows that the facts and material allegations as pleaded by the parties are disputed
andtherearesubstantialtriableissuesnecessitatingaformaltrial.
There can be no summary judgment where questions of fact are in issue or where material
allegations of the pleadings are in dispute.[7] The resolution of whether a foreign law allows only the
recoveryofactualdamagesisaquestionoffactasfarasthetrialcourtisconcernedsinceforeignlaws
donotprovethemselvesinourcourts.[8]Foreignlawsarenotamatterofjudicialnotice.[9]Likeanyother
fact,theymustbeallegedandproven.Certainly,theconflictingallegationsastowhetherNewYorklaw
orPhilippinelawappliestoGuerrerosclaimspresentacleardisputeonmaterialallegationswhichcan
beresolvedonlybyatrialonthemerits.
Under Section 24 of Rule 132, the record of public documents of a sovereign authority or tribunal
maybeprovedby(1)anofficialpublicationthereofor(2)acopyattestedbytheofficerhavingthe
legalcustodythereof.Suchofficialpublicationorcopymustbeaccompanied,iftherecordisnotkept
inthePhilippines,withacertificatethattheattestingofficerhasthelegalcustodythereof.Thecertificate
maybeissuedbyanyoftheauthorizedPhilippineembassyorconsularofficialsstationedintheforeign
country in which the record is kept, and authenticated by the seal of his office. The attestation must
state,insubstance,thatthecopyisacorrectcopyoftheoriginal,oraspecificpartthereof,asthecase
maybe,andmustbeundertheofficialsealoftheattestingofficer.
CertainexceptionstothisrulewererecognizedinAsiavestLimitedv.CourtofAppeals[10]which
heldthat:
xxx:
Althoughitisdesirablethatforeignlawbeprovedinaccordancewiththeaboverule,however,theSupreme
CourtheldinthecaseofWillameeIronandSteelWorksv.Muzzal,thatSecon41,Rule123(Secon25,Rule
132oftheRevisedRulesofCourt)doesnotexcludethepresentaonofothercompetentevidencetoprovethe
existenceofaforeignlaw.Inthatcase,theSupremeCourtconsideredthetesmonyunderoathofanaorneyat
lawofSanFrancisco,California,whoquotedverbamaseconofCaliforniaCivilCodeandwhostatedthatthe
samewasinforceatthemetheobligaonswerecontracted,assucientevidencetoestablishtheexistenceof
saidlaw.Accordingly,inlinewiththisview,theSupremeCourtintheCollectorofInternalRevenuev.Fisheretal.,
upheldtheTaxCourtinconsideringthepernentlawofCaliforniaasprovedbytherespondentswitness.Inthat
case,thecounselforrespondenttesedthatasanacvememberoftheCaliforniaBarsince1951,heisfamiliar
withtherevenueandtaxaonlawsoftheStateofCalifornia.Whenaskedbythelowercourttostatethe
pernentCalifornialawasregardsexemponofintangiblepersonalproperes,thewitnesscitedArcle4,Sec.
13851(a)&(b)oftheCaliforniaInternalandRevenueCodeaspublishedinDerringsCaliforniaCode,apublicaon
ofBancroWhitneyCo.,Inc.Andaspartofhistesmony,afullquotaonofthecitedseconwasoeredin
evidencebyrespondents.Likewise,inseveralnaturalizaoncases,itwasheldbytheCourtthatevidenceofthe
lawofaforeigncountryonreciprocityregardingtheacquisionofcizenship,althoughnotmeengthe
prescribedruleofpracce,maybeallowedandusedasbasisforfavorableacon,if,inthelightofallthe
circumstances,theCourtissasedoftheauthencityofthewrienproofoered.Thus,inanumberof
decisions,mereauthencaonoftheChineseNaturalizaonLawbytheChineseConsulateGeneralofManilawas
heldtobecompetentproofofthatlaw.(Emphasissupplied)
The Bank, however, cannot rely on Willamette Iron and Steel Works v. Muzzal or Collector of
Internal Revenue v. Fisher to support its cause. These cases involved attorneys testifying in open
courtduringthetrialinthePhilippinesandquotingtheparticularforeignlawssoughttobeestablished.
Ontheotherhand,theWaldenaffidavitwastakenabroadexparteandtheaffiantnevertestifiedinopen
court. The Walden affidavit cannot be considered as proof of New York law on damages not only
becauseitisselfservingbutalsobecauseitdoesnotstatethespecificNewYorklawondamages.We
reproduceportionsoftheWaldenaffidavitasfollows:

3.InNewYork,[n]ominaldamagesaredamagesinnameonly,trivialsumssuchassixcentsor$1.Suchdamages
areawardedbothintortandcontractcaseswhentheplainestablishesacauseofaconagainstthedefendant,
butisunabletoproveactualdamages.Dobbs,LawofRemedies,3.32at294(1993).SinceGuerreroisclaimingfor
actualdamages,hecannotaskfornominaldamages.
4.ThereisnoconceptoftemperatedamagesinNewYorklaw.IhavereviewedDobbs,awellrespectedtrease,
whichdoesnotusethephrasetemperatedamagesinitsindex.Ihavealsodoneacomputerizedsearchforthe
phraseinallpublishedNewYorkcases,andhavefoundnocasesthatuseit.Ihaveneverheardthephraseusedin
Americanlaw.
5.TheUniformCommercialCode(UCC)governsmanyaspectsofaBanksrelaonshipwithitsdepositors.Inthis
case,itgovernsGuerrerosclaimarisingoutofthenonpaymentofthe$18,000check.Guerreroclaimsthatthis
wasawrongfuldishonor.However,theUCCstatesthatjusablerefusaltopayoracceptasopposedtodishonor,
occurswhenabankrefusestopayacheckforreasonssuchasamissingindorsement,amissingorillegible
signatureoraforgery,3510,OcialComment2...totheComplaint,MHTreturnedthecheckbecauseithadno
signaturecardon.andcouldnotverifyGuerrerossignature.Inmyopinion,consistentwiththeUCC,thatisa
legimateandjusablereasonnottopay.
6.Consequenaldamagesarenotavailableintheordinarycaseofajusablerefusaltopay.UCC1106provides
thatneitherconsequenalorspecialorpunivedamagesmaybehadexceptasspecicallyprovidedintheActor
byotherruleoflaw.UCC4103furtherprovidesthatconsequenaldamagescanberecoveredonlywherethere
isbadfaith.ThisismorerestricvethantheNewYorkcommonlaw,whichmayallowconsequenaldamagesina
breachofcontractcase(asdoestheUCCwherethereisawrongfuldishonor).
7.UnderNewYorklaw,requestsforlostprots,damagetoreputaonandmentaldistressareconsidered
consequenaldamages.KenfordCo.,Inc.v.CountryofErie,73N.Y.2d312,319,540N.Y.S.2d1,45(1989)(lost
prots);MofConstruconCorp.v.BualoSavingsBank,50A.D.2d718,374N.Y.S..2d868,86970(4thDept
1975)damagetoreputaon);Dobbs,LawofRemedies12.4(1)at63(emoonaldistress).
8.AsamaerofNewYorklaw,aclaimforemoonaldistresscannotberecoveredforabreachofcontract.Geler
v.NaonalWestminsterBankU.S.A.,770F.Supp.210,215(S.D.N.Y.1991);Pitcherellov.MorayHomes,Ltd.,150
A.D.2d860,540N.Y.S.2d387,390(3dDept1989)Marnv.DonaldParkAcres,54A.D.2d975,389N.Y.S..2d31,32
(2ndDept1976).Damagetoreputaonisalsonotrecoverableforacontract.MofConstruconCorp.v.Bualo
SavingsBank,374N.Y.S.2dat86970.
9.Incaseswheretheissueisthebreachofacontracttopurchasestock,NewYorkcourtswillnottakeinto
consideraontheperformanceofthestockaerthebreach.Rather,damageswillbebasedonthevalueofthe
stockatthemeofthebreach,Aroneckv.Atkin,90A.D.2d966,456N.Y.S.2d558,559(4thDept1982),app.den.
59N.Y.2d601,449N.E.2d1276,463N.Y.S.2d1023(1983).
10.UnderNewYorklaw,apartycanonlygetconsequenaldamagesiftheywerethetypethatwouldnaturally
arisefromthebreachandiftheywerebroughtwithinthecontemplaonofparesastheprobableresultofthe
breachatthemeoforpriortocontracng.KenfordCo.,Inc.v.CountryofErie,73N.Y.2d312,319,540N.Y.S.2d
1,3(1989),(quongChapmanv.Fargo,223N.Y.32,36(1918).
11.UnderNewYorklaw,aplainisnotentledtoaorneysfeesunlesstheyareprovidedbycontractor
statute.E.g.,Gelerv.NaonalWestminsterBank,770F.Supp.210,213(S.D.N.Y.1991);CamatronSewingMach,
Inc.v.F.M.RingAssocs.,Inc.,179A.D.2d165,582N.Y.S.2d396(1stDept1992);Stanisicv.SohoLandmarkAssocs.,
73A.D.2d268,577N.Y.S.2d280,281(1stDept1991).Thereisnostatutethatpermitsaorneysfeesinacaseof
thistype.

12.Exemplary,orpunivedamagesarenotallowedforabreachofcontract,evenwheretheplainclaimsthe
defendantactedwithmalice.Gelerv.NaonalWestminsterBank,770F.Supp.210,215(S.D.N.Y.1991);Catalogue
Serviceofchester[11]_v.InsuranceCo.ofNorthAmerica,74A.D.2d837,838,425N.Y.S.2d635,637(2dDept
1980);Seniorv.ManufacturersHanoverTrustCo.,110A.D.2d833,488N.Y.S.2d241,242(2dDept1985).
13.Exemplaryorpunivedamagesmayberecoveredonlywhereitisallegedandproventhatthewrong
supposedlycommiedbydefendantamountstoafraudaimedatthepublicgenerallyandinvolvesahighmoral
culpability.Walkerv.Sheldon,10N.Y.2d401,179N.E.2d497,223N.Y.S.2d488(1961).
14.Furthermore,ithasbeenconsistentlyheldunderNewYorklawthatexemplarydamagesarenotavailablefor
amerebreachofcontractforinsuchacase,asamaeroflaw,onlyaprivatewrongandnotapublicrightis
involved.Thalerv.TheNorthInsuranceCompany,63A.D.2d921,406N.Y.S.2d66(1stDept1978).[12]
TheWaldenaffidavitstatesconclusionsfromtheaffiantspersonalinterpretationandopinionofthe
facts of the case visavis the alleged laws and jurisprudence without citing any law in particular.The
citations in the Walden affidavit of various U.S. court decisions do not constitute proof of the official
records or decisions of the U.S. courts. While the Bank attached copies of some of the U.S. court
decisionscitedintheWaldenaffidavit,thesecopiesdonotcomplywithSection24ofRule132onproof
ofofficialrecordsordecisionsofforeigncourts.
TheBanksintentioninpresentingtheWaldenaffidavitistoproveNewYorklawandjurisprudence.
However,becauseofthefailuretocomplywithSection24ofRule132onhowtoproveaforeignlaw
anddecisionsofforeigncourts,theWaldenaffidavitdidnotprovethecurrentstateofNewYorklawand
jurisprudence. Thus, the Bank has only alleged, but has not proved, what New York law and
jurisprudenceareonthemattersatissue.
Next, the Bank makes much of Guerreros failure to submit an opposing affidavit to the Walden
affidavit.However,thepertinentprovisionofSection3,Rule35oftheoldRulesofCourtdidnotmake
thesubmissionofanopposingaffidavitmandatory,thus:
SEC.3.Moonandproceedingsthereon.Themoonshallbeservedatleastten(10)daysbeforetheme
speciedforthehearing.Theadversepartypriortothedayofhearingmayserveopposingadavits.Aerthe
hearing,thejudgmentsoughtshallberenderedforthwithifthepleadings,deposionsandadmissionsonle,
togetherwiththeadavits,showthat,exceptastotheamountofdamages,thereisnogenuineissueastoany
materialfactandthatthemovingpartyisentledtoajudgmentasamaeroflaw.(Emphasissupplied)
Itisaxiomaticthatthetermmayasusedinremediallaw,isonlypermissiveandnotmandatory.[13]
GuerrerocannotbesaidtohaveadmittedtheavermentsintheBanksmotionforpartialsummary
judgmentandtheWaldenaffidavitjustbecausehefailedtofileanopposingaffidavit.Guerreroopposed
the motion for partial summary judgment, although he did not present an opposing affidavit. Guerrero
may not have presented an opposing affidavit, as there was no need for one, because the Walden
affidavitdidnotestablishwhattheBankintendedtoprove.Certainly,Guerrerodidnotadmit,expressly
or impliedly, the veracity of the statements in the Walden affidavit. The Bank still had the burden of
provingNewYorklawandjurisprudenceevenifGuerrerodidnotpresentanopposingaffidavit.Asthe
partymovingforsummaryjudgment,theBankhastheburdenofclearlydemonstratingtheabsenceof
anygenuineissueoffactandthatanydoubtastotheexistenceofsuchissueisresolvedagainstthe
movant.[14]
Moreover,itwouldhavebeenredundantandpointlessforGuerrerotosubmitanopposingaffidavit
considering that what the Bank seeks to be opposed is the very subject matter of the complaint.
Guerrero need not file an opposing affidavit to the Walden affidavit because his complaint itself
controverts the matters set forth in the Banks motion and the Walden affidavit. A party should not be
madetodenymattersalreadyaverredinhiscomplaint.

There being substantial triable issues between the parties, the courts a quo correctly denied the
Banksmotionforpartialsummaryjudgment.Thereisaneedtodeterminebypresentationofevidence
in a regular trial if the Bank is guilty of any wrongdoing and if it is liable for damages under the
applicablelaws.
This case has been delayed long enough by the Banks resort to a motion for partial summary
judgment.Ironically,theBankhassuccessfullydefeatedtheverypurposeforwhichsummaryjudgments
weredevisedinourrules,whichis,toaidpartiesinavoidingtheexpenseandlossoftimeinvolvedina
trial.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED for lack of merit.The Decision dated August 24, 1998 and
the Resolution dated December 14, 1998 of the Court of Appeals in CAG.R. SP No. 42310 is
AFFIRMED.
SOORDERED.
Davide,Jr.,C.J.,(Chairman),VitugandAzcuna,JJ.,concur.
YnaresSantiago,J.,nopart.
[1]TwelfthDivisioncomposedofJusticesConsueloYnaresSantiago(ponente),RomeoJ.Callejo,Sr.andMarianoM.Umali.
[2]EntitledManufacturersHanoverTrustCo.and/orChemicalBank,Petitioners,versusHon.HermogenesR.Liwag,Presiding

Judge,RegionalTrialCourtofManila,Branch55,andRafaelMa.Guerrero,Respondents.
[3]Rollo,pp.89.
[4]Garciav.CourtofAppeals,312SCRA180(1999).
[5]Dimanv.Alumbres,299SCRA459(1998).
[6]Pazv.CourtofAppeals,181SCRA26(1990).
[7]NationalIrrigationAdministrationv.Gamit,215SCRA436(1992).
[8]Llorentev.CourtofAppeals,345SCRA592(2000).
[9]Ibid.
[10]296SCRA539(1998).
[11]Illegible.
[12]Rollo,pp.2630.
[13]Shaufv.CourtofAppeals,191SCRA713(1990).
[14]NataliaRealtyCorporationv.Vallez,173SCRA534(1989).