Pcib V Ortiz

G.R. No.
L-49223 May 29, 1987
PHILIPPINE COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL BANK, petitioner,

vs.
HON. RODOLFO ORTIZ, ROGELIO MARAVILES, and QUEZON CITY SHERIFF, respondents.
FACTS:
Petitioner Philippine Commercial and Industrial Bank, hereafter simply referred to as PCIB,
defendant in Civil Case No. Q-23275 of the Court of First Instance of Quezon City. The action was
instituted by one of its depositors, Rogelio Maraviles, for the recovery of damages resulting from the
dishonor of two (2) of his checks on account of the negligence of employees of PCIB.
The law firm of Ledesma, Saludo & Associates appeared for PCIB in the suit, and gave its address
as 3rd Floor, LTR Building, 5548 South Superhighway, Makati, Metro Manila. 4 Holding office in the
same LTR Building, at the ground floor, was a corporation known as Commercial Exponent
Philippines, Inc., COMMEX, for short.
The case submitted for decision, and on June 28, 1978, rendered judgment for the plaintiff, ordering
the payment to him by PCIB of P20,000.00 as moral damages; P5,000.00 as exemplary damages;
arguing that the award of damages was exorbitant, & offering the explanation that the lawyer
personally handling the case suddenly resigned & failed to include the case in the list of his pending
cases w/ their respective status to the firm, thus the present case was not reassigned in time for
another lawyer to attend the hearing.
Maraviles opposed, on the grounds that (1) that judgment had already become final, notice thereof
having been served on PCIB, thru COMMEX (a corporation in located on the ground floor of the
same building as the law firm – w/c was on the third floor), & the 15-day period to appeal had
already lapsed when PCIB's motion for reconsideration was filed on Aug. 15, 1978; & (2) Mangohig's
(the lawyer handling the case) failure to include the case in his report did not constitute excusable
negligence warranting relief, & clients are bound by their counsel's mistakes.
PCIB responded, arguing that there was no need to append an affidavit of merits to its motion for
reconsideration, this being required only when the motion for new trial was based on grounds other
than excessive award of damages.
Maraviles pointed out that an affidavit of merits was in fact indispensable because PCIB's lawyers
were invoking excusable negligence as ground to set aside the Order of June 23, 1978 considering
the case submitted for decision.
The Trial Court denied PCIB's motion for reconsideration
By Order dated September 20, 1978, the Court decreed the issuance of a writ of execution at
Maraviles instance, "judgment ** being already final and executory."
Now, the records do not show when and how notice of the Order of September 18, 1978 (denying
PCIB's motion for reconsideration) was served on PCIB's lawyers. These lawyers do not state this
material fact anywhere in their pleadings. Be this as it may, as aforestated they filed with the Trial
Court on September 25, 1978 a notice of appeal, an appeal bond, a record on appeal. And on the
same day they also filed a second Motion for Reconsideration, insisting that service of notice of the
M.L. D.M. ROBLEDO Page 1 of 2

judgment should be reckoned not as of July 15, 1978 (when COMMEX received it), but July 17,
1978 when COMMEX gave the notice to PCIB's lawyers).
ISSUE:
Whether there was a need to append an affidavit of merits to its MR.
RULING:
Yes. A motion for new trial grounded on fraud, accident, mistake or excusable negligence should
thus ordinarily be accompanied by two (2) affidavits: one, setting forth the facts and circumstances
alleged to constitute such fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence; and the other, an
affidavit of merits, setting forth the particular facts claimed to constitute the movant's meritorious
cause of action or defense.
Where, therefore, a motion for new trial on the ground of fraud, etc., is unaccompanied by either or
both affidavits, the motion is pro forma a scrap of paper, as it were, and will not interrupt the running
of the period of appeal. 29 But where, as here, the motion for new trial is founded not only on fraud,
accident, mistake or excusable negligence, but also on the ground of "award of excessive
damages," 30 as to which no affidavit of fraud, etc., or of merits is required, what being required of the
movant being to "point out specifically the findings or conclusions of the judgment" demonstrating
the invoked ground, the motion cannot be denied as pro forma simply because no affidavit of merits
is appended thereto, provided there be a specification of the findings or conclusions of the judgment
alleged to be erroneous because awarding excessive damages. The tenability of the grounds is
dependent upon different premises. The untenability of one does not of itself, render the other
unmeritorious.
WHEREFORE, the petition is dismissed, with costs against petitioner.
M.L. D.M. ROBLEDO Page 2 of 2

Pcib V Ortiz

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Pcib V Ortiz

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Pcib V Ortiz

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

G.R. No.

L-49223 May 29, 1987

PHILIPPINE COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL BANK, petitioner,

The Trial Court denied PCIB's motion for reconsideration

M.L. D.M. ROBLEDO Page 1 of 2

WHEREFORE, the petition is dismissed, with costs against petitioner.

M.L. D.M. ROBLEDO Page 2 of 2

You might also like

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.