Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Catherine Guerzo-Barrion) 1
3RD EXAM COVERAGE CASE ASSIGNMENT
RULE 17, SEC. 3
SPS. CORPUZ v. CITIBANK
Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. 175677
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
G.R. No. 177133
DECISION
CARPIO MORALES, J.:
The facts which spawned the filing of the present
consolidated petitions are as follows:
Azucena Corpuz (Azucena) was a cardholder of Citibank
Mastercard No. 5423-3925-5788-2007 and Citibank VISA
Card No. 4539-7105-2572-2001 both issued by Citibank,
N.A. (Citibank). Each card had a credit limit of P40,000.00. In
view of her then impending official business trip to Europe,
Azucena paid in full on December 7, 1998 her monthly
charges1 on both credit cards via checks and also made
advance check payments of P20,000.00 on December 8,
1998 for her VISA Card, and another P20,000.00 for her
Mastercard on December 14, 1998, to cover future
transactions.2
While in Italy on December 9, 1998, Azucena dined at a
restaurant. To settle her bill of 46,000 liras, she presented
her VISA Card, but to her surprise and embarrassment, the
restaurant did not honor it. She then brought out her
Mastercard which the restaurant honored. On even date,
Azucena incurred a bill of 378,000 liras at a shop which she
intended to charge to her credit cards. This time, both her
VISA and Mastercard were not honored, drawing her to pay
the bill in cash.3
required;44 and that the motion for deferment was filed out of
deference to the appellate court where the spouses petition
involving the same parties was then still pending.45
The Court denies Citibanks Motion for Reconsideration.
To be sure, there is no conflict in the appellate courts rulings
in CA G.R. SP No. 80095 and CA G.R. CV No. 86401. The
appellate court ruled in CA G.R. SP No. 80095 that Citibank
could still prosecute its Counterclaim, while it ruled in CA
G.R. CV No. 86401 that Citibanks right to present evidence
thereon had lapsed, hence, it denied Citibanks motion to
defer and dismissed its Counterclaim.
Complementary as they are, the appellate courts rulings
essentially resolved that Citibank could present evidence on
its Counterclaim but within the 30-day period, as mandated
by the trial court.
The trial courts Order of September 17, 2003, which
reiterated its earlier May 5, 2003 Order, is not an incomplete
order as it is clear that Citibank was "allowed to present its
evidence [ex parte] on its counterclaim within the 30-day
period provided therein reckoned anew from the date of
receipt hereof." The Order plainly mentioned the allowable
period when Citibank was to present its evidence. As to
when the ex parte presentation of evidence would terminate,
the branch clerk of court, as the commissioner in such a
proceeding,46 has discretion thereon.
It bears noting that Citibank never attempted to present even
just initial evidence within the 30-day period ordered by the
trial court, despite receipt of such Order on September 29,
2003. It thereafter belatedly filed a motion to defer
presentation of evidence on January 5, 2004, or more than
two months after the expiration of the 30-day period. The
clerk of court, via Commissioners Report of October 20,
2003, even pointed out Citibanks failure to present
evidence.lawph!l
It bears noting furthermore that Citibank did not seek
reconsideration of the trial courts Order of February 13,
2004 denying its ex parte motion to present evidence, and it
was only after more than five months or on August 4, 2005
when it, again, belatedly filed a motion for reconsideration of
the June 30, 2005 Order dismissing its Counterclaim.
As for Citibanks faulting the trial court for denying its motion
for deferment for lack of notice of hearing, it does not lie,
given that Citibank re-filed the same motion, this time with
the requisite notice of hearing. Clearly, it is estopped from
raising this issue.
AT ALL EVENTS, the appellate court was correct in its
finding that the trial court did not commit any reversible error
in proceeding with the case as no restraining order or
injunction was issued in CA G.R. SP No. 80095. Section 7 of
Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, as amended, provides that a
petition for certiorari shall not interrupt the course of the
DECISION
PERALTA, J.:
Before the Court is a petition for review on certiorari under
Rule 45 of the Rules of Court seeking to reverse and set
aside the Decision1 and Resolution2 dated November 30,
2006 and February 8, 2007 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in
CA-G.R. CV No. 69001. The CA Decision affirmed the
Orders of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Bacoor, Cavite,
Branch 89, dated September 28, 1998 and May 6, 1999,
while theCA Resolution denied petitioners' Motion for
Reconsideration.
The factual and procedural antecedents of the case are as
follows:
On March 3, 1995, herein respondent filed with the RTC of
Bacoor, Cavite a Complaint for a Sum of Money and
Damages against herein petitioners alleging as follows:
xxxx
designate any period for the filing of the defendantsappellants' herein petitioners' response. Neither did the trial
court fix the period for the same upon motion of the parties.
However, such failure to designate does not automatically
mean that the filing or the service of an answer or comment
to the "Request" would be left to the whims and caprices of
defendants-appellants. It must be reiterated that one of the
main objectives of Rule 26 is to expedite the trial of the case
(Duque vs. Court of Appeals, 383,
SCRA 520, 527 2002 ). Thus, it is also provided in the second
paragraph of Section 2 of Rule 26 of the Rules of Court that
"[o]bjections on the ground of irrelevancy or impropriety of
the matter requested shall be promptly submitted to the court
for resolution."21
Nonetheless, the Court takes exception to the ruling of the
CA that by reason of the belated filing of petitioners'
Comments on the Request for Admission, they are deemed
to have impliedly admitted that they are indebted to
respondent in the amount of P259,809.50.
A careful examination of the said Request for Admission
shows that the matters of fact set forth therein are simply a
reiteration of respondent's main allegation in its Amended
Complaint and that petitioners had already set up the
affirmative defense of partial payment with respect to the
above allegation in their previous pleadings.
This Court has ruled that if the factual allegations in the
complaint are the very same allegations set forth in the
request for admission and have already been specifically
denied, the required party cannot be compelled to deny them
anew.22 A request for admission that merely reiterates the
allegations in an earlier pleading is inappropriate under Rule
26 of the Rules of Court, which as a mode of discovery,
contemplates of interrogatories that would clarify and tend to
shed light on the truth or falsity of the allegations in the
pleading.23 Rule 26 does not refer to a mere reiteration of
what has already been alleged in the pleadings.24
Nonetheless, consistent with the abovementioned Rule, the
party being requested should file an objection to the effect
that the request for admission is improper and that there is
no longer any need to deny anew the allegations contained
therein considering that these matters have already been
previously denied.
The foregoing notwithstanding, the Court finds that the CA
was correct in sustaining the summary judgment rendered by
the RTC.1wphi1
Sections 1 and 3, Rule 35 of the Rules of Court provide as
follows:
Section 1. Summary judgment for claimant. A party seeking
to recover upon a claim, counterclaim, or cross-claim or to
obtain a declaratory relief may, at any time after the pleading
in answer thereto has been served, move with supporting
affidavits, depositions or admissions for a summary judgment
in his favor upon all or any part thereof.