Ng Meng Tam v. China Banking Corp.
NEW DOCTRINEFacts
The Antecedents: China Banking Corporation (China Bank) filed a collection suit against Ever Electrical Manufacturing Company Inc. (Ever), the heirs of Go Tong, Vicente Go, George Go, and petitioner Ng Meng Tam (Ng Meng Tam). China Bank alleged that it granted Ever a loan, backed by two surety agreements executed by Vicente, George, and Ng Meng Tam. Upon Ever's default, China Bank sent demand letters, which were unanswered. Ng Meng Tam alleged the surety agreements were null and void as they were executed before the loan was granted and that he did not receive any demand letter. Procedural History: Ng Meng Tam's motion for preliminary hearing on his affirmative defenses was denied by the Regional Trial Court (RTC). The Court of Appeals (CA) ruled that a preliminary hearing was proper. Subsequently, Ng Meng Tam served interrogatories on China Bank. After failed mediation, the case was re-raffled to another RTC branch. Ng Meng Tam moved for a hearing of his affirmative defenses, finding the answers to interrogatories evasive, and applied for a subpoena duces tecum and ad testificandum against George Yap, an officer of China Bank. The Petition: China Bank objected to George Yap's testimony, citing Section 5 of the Judicial Affidavit Rule (JAR), arguing Yap could not be compelled to testify without a judicial affidavit. The RTC denied Ng Meng Tam's motion, ruling that Section 5 did not apply to adverse or hostile witnesses and that Yap had not unjustifiably declined to execute a judicial affidavit. The RTC also found that Yap's answers to interrogatories did not constitute a judicial affidavit. Ng Meng Tam's motion for reconsideration was denied. Hence, Ng Meng Tam filed a petition for review before the Supreme Court.
Issue(s)
Whether Section 5 of the Judicial Affidavit Rule applies to hostile or adverse witnesses. Whether the RTC committed a grave error in interpreting Section 5 of the JAR contrary to its wording, practical intention, and common sense. Whether the RTC effectively disregarded the relevant rules on modes of discovery governing the presentation of adverse witnesses.
Ruling
The Supreme Court granted the petition, annulling and setting aside the May 28, 2014 and August 27, 2014 Orders of the RTC, Branch 139, Makati City.
Ratio Decidendi
On the applicability of Section 5 of the Judicial Affidavit Rule to adverse party or hostile witnesses: The Court held that Section 5 of the JAR expressly excludes adverse party witnesses and hostile witnesses from its application. The provision contemplates a situation where a requested witness, who is neither an adverse party's witness nor a hostile witness, unjustifiably declines to execute a judicial affidavit or refuses without just cause to make relevant documents available. In such cases, the requesting party may avail of a subpoena ad testificandum or duces tecum. The principle of expressio unius est exclusion alterius applies, meaning the express mention of certain individuals implies the exclusion of others not mentioned. Therefore, adverse party witnesses and hostile witnesses are not covered by Section 5. On the interpretation of Section 5 of the JAR: The Court found that the RTC erred in its interpretation. While the RTC correctly noted that Section 5 does not apply to adverse witnesses, it incorrectly concluded that Ng Meng Tam needed to show Yap unjustifiably refused to execute a judicial affidavit. The exclusion of adverse and hostile witnesses from Section 5 means that the rules governing their presentation under the Rules of Court, not Section 5 of the JAR, should apply. The Court clarified that the interrogatories served by Ng Meng Tam complied with Section 6, Rule 25 of the Rules of Court, which is a prerequisite for calling an adverse party witness to the stand. On the disregard of rules on modes of discovery: The Court ruled that the RTC's interpretation effectively disregarded the relevant rules on modes of discovery. Since Section 5 of the JAR does not apply to adverse witnesses, the established procedures under the Rules of Court for presenting such witnesses must be followed. Citing Afulugencia v. Metropolitan Bank & Trust Co., the Court reiterated that the procedure of calling an adverse party to the witness stand is allowed only if written interrogatories are first served, which was complied with in this case. Therefore, there was no reason for the RTC to deny the presentation of George Yap as a witness.
Main Doctrine
Section 5 of the Judicial Affidavit Rule (JAR) does not apply to adverse party witnesses or hostile witnesses. For the presentation of these types of witnesses, the provisions on the Rules of Court under the Revised Rules of Evidence and all other correlative rules, including the modes of deposition and discovery rules, shall apply.