Gerry was a depositor of a foreign offshore bank with principal office in New York (MHTC). On May 17, 1994, Gerry sued MHTC before the Manila Regional Trial Court (RTC) for nominal, temperate, moral and exemplary damages allegedly because the latter illegally withheld taxes charged against interest on his checking account; returned one of his check worth $ 18,000 due to signature verification problems; and converted his account without his authority.
In its answer, MHTC alleged that by stipulation, Gerry’s account is governed by New York law and this law does not permit any of Gerry’s claims except actual damages. Subsequently, MHTC filed a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment seeking the dismissal of Gerry’s claim for said damages as well as attorney’s fees on the same ground alleged in its answer. It contended that the trial should be limited to the issue of actual damages. In support of its motion, the bank submitted the affidavit of a New York attorney (Walden Affidavit). This affidavit states conclusions from affiant’s personal interpretation and opinion of the facts vis-a-vis the alleged laws and jurisprudence in New York governing Gerry’s account without citing any law in particular.
The RTC denied the motion for partial summary judgment. This ruling was affirmed by the Court of Appeals (CA) which found that the Walden affidavit does not serve as proof of the New York law and jurisprudence relied on by the bank to support its motion.
Was the CA correct?
Yes.
In a motion for summary judgment, the crucial question is: are the issues raised in the pleadings genuine, sham, or fictitious as shown by the affidavits, depositions or admissions? A genuine issue means an issue which calls for the presentation of evidence as distinguished from an issue that is contrived or fictitious and does not call for any trial. A perusal of the pleadings shows that there are genuine issues of fact that necessitate formal trial. The facts are asserted by Gerry in his complaint while specific denials and affirmative defenses are set out in the bank’s answer. The bank’s motion for partial summary judgment as supported by the Walden affidavit does not demonstrate that Gerry’s claim are sham, fictitious or contrived. On the contrary, the Walden affidavit shows that the facts and material allegations pleaded by the parties are disputed and there are substantial issues necessitating a formal trial. The resolution of whether a foreign law allows only the recovery of actual damages is a question of fact as far as the trial court is concerned since foreign laws do not prove themselves in our courts. Foreign laws are not a matter of judicial notice. Like any other fact, they must be alleged and proven. Under Section 24, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court, this foreign law may be proved by (1) an official publication thereof or (2) a copy attested by the officer having custody thereof. If the copy or publication is not kept in the Philippines, it must be accompanied by a certificate that the attesting officer has legal custody thereof. The Walden affidavit cannot be considered as proof of the New York law on damages not only because it is self-serving but also because it does not state the specific New York law on damages. It fails to comply with Section 24, Rule 132. The citations therein of various US court decisions do not constitute proof of the official records or decisions of the US courts. Thus the bank has only alleged, but has not proved what New York law and jurisprudence are on the matters at issue (Manufacturer’s Hanover Trust Co. vs. Guerrero, G.R. 136804, February 19, 2003. 397 SCRA 709).