PROOF OF FOREIGN LAW MANUFACTURERS HANOVER TRUST CO. and/or CHEMICAL BANK vs. RAFAEL MA. GUERRERO Fer!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 (llegally $ithheld $ithheld ta)es ta)es charged charged agains againstt interests interests on his chec!ing chec!ing account account $ith the the an! *' + return returned ed chec! chec! $orth $orth 1-,.. 1-,.... due to signatur signaturee verificatio verificationn pro*lems pro*lems c' nauth nauthori ori0ed 0ed conver conversio sionn of of his his accoun accountt &he an! ans$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 +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! 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' 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 &+ of the %ules of ;vidence, $hich should *e follo$ed in proving foreign la$' SEC. #$' #$' Classes of or the purpose of their presentation in evidence, documents are either pu*lic or private' u*lic documents are? "a# &he $ritten $ritten official official acts, or records of the official official acts of the sovereign sovereign authority authority,, official *odies *odies and tri*unals, tri*unals, and pu*lic officers, $hether of the hilippines, or of a foreign country@ SEC. &+. roof &+. 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 officer having 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' custody' (f the office in $hich the record is !ept is in a foreign country, the certificate may *e made *y a secretary of the em*assy or legation, consul general, consul, vice consul, or consular agent or *y any officer in the foreign service of the hilippines stationed in the foreign country in $hich the record is !ept, and authenticated *y the seal of his office'
Te Waden A001dav1- Fa1ed -o Prove Ne2 5or6 La2 and 8!r1s4r!den3e •
•
The an!s motion for 56 as supported *y the 8alden +ffidavit does not demonstrate that Guerreros claims are sham, fictitious fictitious or contrived' On the contrary, contrary, the 8alden affidavit affidavit sho$s that the facts and material material allegation allegationss as pleaded *y the parties are disputed and there are s u*stantial tria*le issues necessitating a formal tri al' >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 $hich can *e resolved only *y a trial on the merits'
•
•
•
•
&he an!, ho$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 decisi ons 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 i ssue'
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$ever, the pertinent provision of %ule EF 5ec E of the old %ules of Court did not ma!e the su*mission of an opposing affidavit mandatory' Guerrero need not file an opposing affidavit to the 8alden affidavit *ecause his c omplaint itself controverts the matters set forth in the an!s motion and the 8alden affidavit' + party should not *e made to deny matters already averred in his complaint'
&here *eing su*stantial tria*le issues *et$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'
