GR 214054; (August, 2015) (Digest)
G.R. No. 214054, August 5, 2015
Ng Meng Tam, Petitioner, vs. China Banking Corporation, Respondent.
FACTS
China Banking Corporation (China Bank) filed a collection suit against Ever Electrical Manufacturing Company Inc. and its sureties, including petitioner Ng Meng Tam. During the proceedings, petitioner served interrogatories on China Bank, which were answered by its Account Officer, George Yap. Finding the answers evasive, petitioner applied for a subpoena to compel Yap to testify as a witness. When the case was called for Yap’s presentation, China Bank objected, citing Section 5 of the Judicial Affidavit Rule (JAR), arguing that Yap could not be compelled to testify because petitioner did not obtain and present his judicial affidavit. Petitioner contended that Section 5 of the JAR does not apply to adverse or hostile witnesses like Yap. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) denied petitioner’s motion, ruling that Section 5 of the JAR did not apply because Yap was an adverse witness and did not unjustifiably decline to execute a judicial affidavit. The RTC also rejected China Bank’s argument that Yap’s answers to interrogatories constituted his judicial affidavit. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied.
ISSUE
Whether Section 5 of the Judicial Affidavit Rule applies to adverse or hostile witnesses, thereby requiring a party to obtain and submit the judicial affidavit of an adverse witness before compelling their testimony.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court granted the petition. It held that Section 5 of the Judicial Affidavit Rule does not apply to adverse party witnesses. The Court clarified that the JAR, which mandates the submission of judicial affidavits in lieu of direct testimonies, applies to pending cases. However, Section 5 of the JAR, which allows a party to avail of Rule 21 of the Rules of Court if a witness unjustifiably declines to execute a judicial affidavit, is limited to witnesses who are neither the witness of the adverse party nor a hostile witness. The rule cannot be interpreted to require a party to obtain the judicial affidavit of an adverse witness, as it would be impractical and contrary to the adversarial nature of proceedings. The Court emphasized that the JAR should not impede established modes of discovery, such as presenting adverse witnesses without their judicial affidavits. The RTC’s orders were annulled and set aside.