DIGEST/ACOPIADO/ LARA GIFTS V. PNB 2018

Lara Gifts and Decors, Inc. vs. PNB

GR. Nos. 230429-30| January 24, 2018

Digest by: A. Acopiado

FACTS:

Petitioner company insured a building with respondent bank. Sometime later, the subject of the insurance was gutted by fire. Respondent engaged services of independent appraisers for the fire loss, but the latter were unable to ascertain the damage due to petitioner’s failure to supply documents. Respondent thus denied the insurance claim.

 Petitioner sued in the RTC. In the pre-trial the parties agreed to the facts and issues in dispute and the judge issued an order which stipulated that the parties agree to the presentation of additional evidence. None of the parties objected to the stipulation.

 Sometime later, petitioner introduced an affidavit and documents which were not submitted in the pre-trial. Respondent objected stating that the same is violative of the judicial affidavit rule and the court memo governing pre-trial procedures and modes of discovery (A.M. No. 03-1-09-SC). Respondent argued that admission of said documents would be violative of said pronouncements’ aim of the speedy administration of justice, disposition of cases and declogging of court dockets.

 Despite respondent’s objection, the RTC allowed said documents. Upon denial of its motion for reconsideration, Respondent filed a petition for certiorari in the CA. Respondent’s petition was initially denied by the CA but was considered meritorious upon motion for reconsideration. Aggrieved, petitioner filed its own petition for certiorari in the SC.

ISSUE:

W/N the CA erred in disallowing the introduction of the additional documentary exhibits.

RULING:

Yes. The disallowance is erroneous.

 Sec 10 of AM No. 12-8-8-SC or the Judicial Affidavit rule does not contain a blanket prohibition on the submission of additional evidence. However, the submission is subject to the following conditions: (1) admission of late documents can only be allowed once by the court; (2) valid reason for delay; (3) opposing party is not prejudiced. Further A.M. No. 03-1-09-SC allows the trial court discretion in admitting additional evidence not presented in the pre-trial as long as “good cause is shown”.

 The circumstances of the case indicate that the parties did not object to the proviso allowing for the admission of the additional evidence as stated in the pre-trial order. Further, upon closer inspection of the court, the cross examination made by the respondent allowed for the introduction of said documents in the re-direct, being relevant to those asked by respondent. Petition is thus granted, CA decision reversed and RTC decision reinstated. However, the court stresses that litigants are strictly enjoined to adhere to the provisions of the JA rule.

Popular posts from this blog

[ G.R. No. 214054, August 05, 2015 ] NG MENG TAM, PETITIONER, VS. CHINA BANKING CORPORATION, RESPONDENT.

  THIRD DIVISION [ G.R. No. 214054, August 05, 2015 ] NG MENG TAM, PETITIONER, VS. CHINA BANKING CORPORATION, RESPONDENT. D E C I S I O N VILLARAMA, JR., J.: Before this Court is a direct recourse from the Regional Trial Court (RTC) via petition [1]  for review on the question of whether Section 5 [2]  of the  Judicial   Affidavit   Rule  (JAR) applies to hostile or adverse witnesses.  The petition seeks to annul and set aside the May 28, 2014 [3]  and August 27, 2014 [4]  Orders of the RTC, Branch 139, Makati City in Civil Case No. 08-1028. This case stemmed from a collection suit filed by China Banking Corporation (China Bank) against Ever Electrical Manufacturing Company Inc. (Ever), the heirs of Go Tong, Vicente Go, George Go and petitioner Ng Meng Tam sometime in December 2008.  China Bank alleged that it granted Ever a loan amounting to P5,532,331.63.  The loan was allegedly backed by two surety agreements executed by Vic...
Read more

G.R. No. 230429 LARA'S GIFT AND DECORS, INC., Petitioner vs. PNB GENERAL INSURERS CO., INC. and UCPB GENERAL INSURANCE CO., INC., Respondents

 t HIRD DIVISION January 24, 2018 G.R. No. 230429 LARA'S GIFT AND DECORS, INC.,  Petitioner vs. PNB GENERAL INSURERS CO., INC. and UCPB GENERAL INSURANCE CO., INC. , Respondents D E C I S I O N VELASCO,JR.,  J.: Nature of the Case Before this Court is a petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, seeking to reverse and set aside the March 6, 2017 Amended Decision 1  of the Court of Appeals (CA), Special Former Fifth Division, in CA-G.R. SP Nos. 138321 and 138774. The Amended Decision granted respondents' motions for the reconsideration of the December 21, 2015 Decision 2  of the CA's Former Fifth Division annulling and setting aside the Omnibus Orders dated October 1, 2014 and November 26, 2014 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati City, Branch 14 7, in Civil Case No. 11-238. Factual Antecedents Petitioner Lara's Gifts and Decors, Inc. (LGDI) is engaged in the business of manufacturing, selling, and exporting various handicraft items and decor...
Read more