G.R. No. 136804 ; February 19, 2003
MANUFACTURERS HANOVER TRUST CO. and/or CHEMICAL BANK, petitioners, vs. RAFAEL MA. GUERRERO, respondent.

FACTS

Respondent Rafael Ma. Guerrero filed a complaint for damages against petitioner Bank, alleging illegal withholding of taxes, wrongful dishonor of a check, and unauthorized account conversion. The Bank, in its Answer, asserted that the governing law of the account was New York law, which purportedly barred all claims except for actual damages. Subsequently, the Bank filed a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment seeking the dismissal of claims for consequential, nominal, temperate, moral, and exemplary damages, as well as attorney’s fees. This motion was supported by an affidavit from a New York attorney, Alyssa Walden, which stated that New York law prohibited such damages. The affidavit was authenticated by the Philippine Consular Office in New York.
The Regional Trial Court denied the motion for partial summary judgment. The Court of Appeals affirmed this denial, holding that the Walden affidavit did not constitute proper proof of the foreign law and jurisprudence. The appellate court ruled that foreign laws must be proven as public documents under the Rules of Evidence, requiring an official publication or a copy attested by the legal custodian, accompanied by a proper certificate. The Bank elevated the case to the Supreme Court via a petition for review.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that the affidavit of a foreign attorney was insufficient to prove foreign law for the purpose of obtaining a partial summary judgment.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals. The Court held that the motion for partial summary judgment was properly denied. While Rule 35 (formerly Rule 34) permits the use of affidavits to support such a motion, the movant bears the burden of clearly demonstrating the absence of any genuine issue of fact. The Walden affidavit was insufficient to prove the content of New York law. Foreign law is a question of fact that must be pleaded and proved under the Rules of Evidence. Section 24, Rule 132 requires that a foreign law, as a public document, be evidenced by an official publication or a copy attested by the legal custodian, with a corresponding certificate.
The affidavit of a foreign attorney, without more, constitutes hearsay and does not satisfy this stringent requirement. The Bank failed to meet its burden of proof. Furthermore, the respondent’s failure to submit a counter-affidavit did not justify granting the motion. The complaint itself controverted the Bank’s assertions, and the Bank could not rely on the mere absence of an opposing affidavit when its own supporting evidence was inadequate. Substantial triable issues existed regarding the Bank’s alleged wrongdoing and the applicable law on damages, necessitating a full trial on the merits.