7/17/2019 Manufacturers Hanover Trust vs. Guerrero

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/manufacturers-hanover-trust-vs-guerrero 1/2

PROOF OF FOREIGN LAWMANUFACTURERS HANOVER TRUST CO. and/or CHEMICAL BANK vs. RAFAEL MA. GUERREROFer!ar" #$% &''( GR NO. #()*'+

FACTS,

• On May 17, 1994, Guerrero filed a complaint for damages against Hanover and/or Chemical an! "an!# $ith the %&C

of Manila'• Guerrero sought payment of damages for

a' (llegally $ithheld ta)es charged against interests on his chec!ing account $ith the an!*' + returned chec! $orth 1-,... due to signature verification pro*lemsc' nauthori0ed conversion of his account

• &he an! ans$ered that *y stipulation, Guerreros account is governed *y 2e$ 3or! la$, and such la$ does not permit

any of Guerreros claims e)cept actual damages'

• &he an! filed a Motion for artial 5ummary 6udgment "56#, contending that the trial should *e limited to the issue of

actual damages only'

• &he 8alden +ffidavit $as presented *y the an! to support its Motion for 56'

• &he %&C and C+ denied the an!s Motion for 56, stating that the 8alden +ffidavit does not serve as proof of the

2e$ 3or! la$ and :urisprudence relied on *y the an! to support its Motion'

ISSUE,  WON -e Waden A001dav1- 2as s!00131en- 4roo0 o0 -e Ne2 5or6 a2 and 7!r1s4r!den3e re1ed !4on " -e Ban6

1n 1-s Mo-1on 0or PS89 : NO.

HEL;,

• NO' &he 8alden +ffidavit failed to prove 2e$ 3or! la$ and :urisprudence' &he 5C denied the an!s petition for lac! of

merit'

• &he C+ considered the 2e$ 3or! la$ and :urisprudence as pu*lic documents defined in R!e #(& Se3 #$ and &+ of

the %ules of ;vidence, $hich should *e follo$ed in proving foreign la$'

• SEC. #$' Classes of <ocuments' = >or the purpose of their presentation in evidence, documents are either pu*lic or

private'u*lic documents are?"a# &he $ritten official acts, or records of the official acts of the sovereign authority, official *odies and tri*unals, and

pu*lic officers, $hether of the hilippines, or of a foreign country@

• SEC. &+. roof of official record' = &he record of pu*lic documents referred to in paragraph "a# of 5ection 19, $hen

admissi*le for any purpose, may *e evidenced *y an official pu*lication thereof or *y a copy attested *y the officerhaving the legal custody of the record, or *y his deputy, and accompanied, if the record is not !ept in the hilippines,

 $ith a certificate that such officer has the custody' (f the office in $hich the record is !ept is in a foreign country, thecertificate may *e made *y a secretary of the em*assy or legation, consul general, consul, vice consul, or consularagent or *y any officer in the foreign service of the hilippines stationed in the foreign country in $hich the record is!ept, and authenticated *y the seal of his office'

Te Waden A001dav1- Fa1ed -o Prove Ne2 5or6 La2 and 8!r1s4r!den3e

• The an!s motion for 56 as supported *y the 8alden +ffidavit does not demonstrate that Guerreros claims are

sham, fictitious or contrived' On the contrary, the 8alden affidavit sho$s that the facts and material allegations as

pleaded *y the parties are disputed and there are su*stantial tria*le issues necessitating a formal trial'

• >oreign  la$s are not a matter of :udicial notice' Ai!e any other fact, they must *e alleged and proven' Certainly, the

conflicting allegations as to $hether 2e$ 3or! la$ or hilippine la$ applies to Guerreros claims present a clear

dispute on material allegations $hich can *e resolved only *y a trial on the merits'

7/17/2019 Manufacturers Hanover Trust vs. Guerrero

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/manufacturers-hanover-trust-vs-guerrero 2/2

• &he an!, ho$ever, cannot rely on Willamette Iron and Steel Works v. Muzzal or Collector of Internal Revenue v.

Fisher  to support its cause' &hese cases involved attorneys testifying in open court during the trial in the hilippines

and Buoting the particular foreign la$s sought to *e esta*lished' On the other hand, the 8alden +ffidavit $as ta!en

a*road e) parte and the affiant never testified in open court' &he 8alden +ffidavit cannot *e considered as proof of

2e$ 3or! la$ on damages not only *ecause it is selfserving *ut also *ecause it does not state the specific 2e$ 3or!

la$ on damages'

• &he 8alden +ffidavit states conclusions from the affiants personal interpretation and opinion of the facts of the

case vis a vis the alleged la$s and :urisprudence $ithout citing any la$ in particular' &he citations in the 8alden

+ffidavit of various '5' court decisions do not constitute proof of the official records or decisions of the '5' courts'

• 8hile the an! attached copies of some of the '5' court decisions cited in the 8alden affidavit, these copies do not

comply $ith 5ection D4 of %ule 1ED on proof of official records or decisions of foreign courts'

• &he an! failed to comply $ith 5ection D4 of %ule 1ED on ho$ to prove a foreign la$ and decisions of foreign courts'

&he 8alden +ffidavit did not prove the current state of 2e$ 3or! la$ and :urisprudence' &hus, the an! has only

alleged, *ut has not proved, $hat 2e$ 3or! la$ and :urisprudence are on the matters at issue'

I- Was No- Manda-or" 0or G!errero -o S!<1- an O44os1n= A001dav1- -o -e Waden A001dav1-

• 2e)t, the an! ma!es much of Guerreros failure to su*mit an opposing affidavit to the 8alden +ffidavit' Ho$ever, the

pertinent provision of %ule EF 5ec E of the old %ules of Court did not ma!e the su*mission of an opposing affidavit

mandatory' Guerrero need not file an opposing affidavit to the 8alden affidavit *ecause his complaint itself controverts

the matters set forth in the an!s motion and the 8alden affidavit' + party should not *e made to deny matters already

averred in his complaint'

• &here *eing su*stantial tria*le issues *et$een the parties, the courts a quo correctly denied the an!s motion for

partial summary :udgment' &here is a need to determine *y presentation of evidence in a regular trial if the an! is

guilty of any $rongdoing and if i t is lia*le for damages under the applica*le la$s'