G.R. No. L-55968 July 20, 1981
Amelito R. Mutuc, petitioner, vs. Judge Jaime R. Agloro (Court of First Instance of Manila, Branch XXIII) and Associated Citizens Bank, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Amelito R. Mutuc was a former chairman and legal consultant of the Associated Banking Corporation. In connection with his separation, an arrangement was made wherein he was granted an overdraft line of P120,000 by the bank. The overdraft agreement stipulated that the bank’s books would be final and conclusive evidence of the amount due. Years later, after a merger, the respondent Associated Citizens Bank sued Mutuc for the recovery of P189,395.26, representing his alleged overdraft balance plus interest. Mutuc filed an answer, contending he had no record of his transactions and could not admit the indebtedness.
During pre-trial proceedings, Mutuc filed a motion for a bill of particulars, requesting details on how the claimed amount was computed and when the overdraft ceiling was reached. He later filed a motion to inspect and copy the bank’s records concerning his account. The trial court denied both motions, ruling that the particulars sought were merely evidentiary matters not proper for a bill of particulars and that inspection involved evidentiary discovery.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court committed a grave abuse of discretion in denying Mutuc’s motions for a bill of particulars and for inspection and copying of the bank’s records.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court granted the petition, setting aside the trial court’s orders. The legal logic centers on the liberal interpretation of procedural rules to achieve substantial justice and the policy of discovery under the Rules of Court. While the bank’s books were designated as conclusive under the contract, this stipulation does not preclude Mutuc from verifying the basis of the bank’s computation, especially when he alleges having no personal records. The Court emphasized that technicalities should be avoided to allow parties to fully lay their cards on the table, facilitating possible settlement or summary judgment.
The Rules of Court endorse a broad policy of discovery, permitting what was traditionally considered a “fishing expedition” to prevent trial by ambush. Granting Mutuc access to a detailed statement and, if necessary, the supporting records aligns with this policy and is fundamentally fair. It enables him to properly prepare his defense and allows the court to ascertain the claim’s merit early. The bank also benefits, as disclosure may confirm the accuracy of its claim or reveal an error. Therefore, the respondent bank was ordered to provide Mutuc a complete statement of account and, if he remains dissatisfied, to allow inspection of the relevant records under Rule 27.