Scribd
Upload
86 views1 page

Hanover vs. Guerrero: Summary Judgment Denied

1) Respondent Guerrero filed a complaint against petitioner Bank for allegedly illegally withholding taxes from interest payments, returning a $18,000 check due to signature issues, and unauthorized account conversion. 2) The Bank claimed that Guerrero's account was governed by New York law, which does not allow claims other than actual damages. It filed for partial summary judgment to dismiss other damages claims. 3) The court denied the motion, finding that substantial triable issues necessitated a formal trial, as the facts and allegations were disputed, including the applicability of New York versus Philippine law.

Uploaded by

GLORILYN MONTEJO
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
86 views1 page

Hanover vs. Guerrero: Summary Judgment Denied

1) Respondent Guerrero filed a complaint against petitioner Bank for allegedly illegally withholding taxes from interest payments, returning a $18,000 check due to signature issues, and unauthorized account conversion. 2) The Bank claimed that Guerrero's account was governed by New York law, which does not allow claims other than actual damages. It filed for partial summary judgment to dismiss other damages claims. 3) The court denied the motion, finding that substantial triable issues necessitated a formal trial, as the facts and allegations were disputed, including the applicability of New York versus Philippine law.

Uploaded by

GLORILYN MONTEJO
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

18. Manufacture Hanover vs.

Guerero

GR. 136804 19 Feb 2003

FACTS:

Respondent Guerrero filed a complaint for damages against petitioner Bank for
allegedly: (a) illegally withheld taxes charged against interests on his checking
account with the Bank; (b) a returned check worth USS18,000.99 due to signature
verification problems; and (c) unauthorized conversion of his account.

The Bank claimed that by stipulation Guerrero’s account is governed by New York
and this law does not permit any claim except actual damages. The Bank filed a
Motion for Partial Summary Judgment seeking to dismiss the claims for
consequential, nominal, temperate, moral and exemplary damages.

The affidavit of Alyssa Walden, a New York attorney, supported the Bank’s claim that
Guerrero’s bank account stipulated that the governing law is New York law and that
this law bars all of the claims except actual damages. The Philippine Consular Office
in NY authenticated the Walden affidavit. CA: Even if the Walden affidavit is used for
purpose of summary judgment, the Bank must still comply with the procedure
prescribed by the Rule 132, Sec. 24

ISSUE: WoN there are genuine issues of fact that necessitate formal trial—YES.

RULING: Petition DENIED. There being substanstialtriable issues, motion for partial
summary judgment is denied.

RATIO:

A genuine issue means an issue of fact which calls for the presentation of evidence
as distinguished from an issue which is fictitious or contrived so as not to constitute a
genuine issue for trial. Walden affidavit shows that the facts and material allegations
as pleaded by the parties are disputed and there are substantial triable issues
necessitating a formal trial. 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. The conflicting allegations as to whether New York law or
Philippine law applies to Guerreros claims present a clear dispute on material
allegations which can be resolved only by a trial on the merits. The Walden affidavit
cannot be considered as proof of 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.

Guerrero cannot be said to have admitted the averments in the Banks motion for
partial summary judgment and the Walden affidavit just because he failed to file an
opposing affidavit.

You might also like