FIRST
DIVISION
CHINA BANKING
CORPORATION, G.R. SP. 143490
Petitioner,
Present:
PUNO, C.J., Chairperson,
- versus - SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ,
AZCUNA, and
GARCIA, JJ.
DOLORES PADILLA, Promulgated:
Respondent.
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - x
D E C I S I O N
GARCIA, J.:
Via this petition for review
under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, petitioner China Banking Corporation (CBC)
seeks the annulment and setting aside of the Resolution[1]
dated January 26, 2000 of the Court of Appeals (CA), as reiterated in its
Resolution of June 2, 2000,[2] denying
due course to and dismissing CBC’s Petition for Certiorari (with Prayer for
Issuance of Restraining Order/Preliminary Injunction) in CA-G.R. SP No. 55795, entitled China
Banking Corporation v. Hon. Jose R. Bautista, in his capacity as Presiding
Judge of the Regional Trial Court, Makati City,
Branch 136, and Dolores Padilla, for petitioner's failure to comply with
the requirement of Section 3, Rule
46, of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended.
The facts:
On
1. Erroneous deductions from her Current Account No.
164-001371-5 of the following:
a. The
amount of P23,425.00 on
b. The amount of P10,000.00, P35,000.00 and P100,000.00
or a total of P168,425.00 on
c. The
total amount of P4,540,000.00 without debit memos on different dates;
2. Erroneous payment of China Bank Check No. 47050 with the
amount in words stated therein as Eighteen Thousand Pesos
only but the
figures were written as P80,000.00, resulting in an alleged loss of P62,000.00;
3. Erroneous debiting from her account of PVB -Tuguegarao
Branch Check No. 6969 in the amount of P20,000.00.
Prior to the filing of the complaint, petitioner bank
audited the transactions involving the respondent's checking account with its Tuguegarao branch and came to the conclusion that if the
foregoing allegations were true, the same were imputable to its branch manager
Emelina T. Quitan, who, in violation of the petitioner’s Code of Ethics and Operations
Procedure and Policy Manual, exceeded her authority in the performance of her
duties as branch manager. Petitioner
also found out that Quitan had committed the following acts, prompting it to
terminate the latter’s services on
1. Allowing the unauthorized overdraft of the respondent in the
total amount of P1,475,731.43.
2. Accommodating the overdrawn checks of respondent, i.e., CBC
Check Nos. 120935 and 120938 for P100,000.00 each, depositing and
posting them as available despite knowledge that they were drawn from
insufficient funds in order to fund another depositor's CBC Check No. 116461.
3. Making good CBC Check No. 111459 drawn by respondent for P250,000.00
despite the fact that said check was not sufficiently funded.
4. Granting bills purchased facility without approval of the
petitioner.
5. Allowing fund transfers from client's accounts to other
accounts in violation of the petitioner’s policy prohibiting fund transfers
between accounts not owned by the same party.
6. Defying the lawful order of her superior.
7. And other numerous acts and omissions.
Believing
that there was sufficient cause to hold its branch manager liable to it by way
of indemnity, subrogation and contribution in respect to Padilla's complaint,
petitioner filed with the trial court a motion for leave of court to file a third-party
complaint[5] against Quitan.
In its Order[6] of August
17, 1999, the trial court denied the motion on the ground that petitioner, as a
corporation, could act only through its employees and was responsible for the
acts committed by them in the discharge of their function, adding that Quitan's
inclusion in the case was not proper and whatever claims the petitioner may
have had against her should be ventilated in another forum. Petitioner moved for a reconsideration but to
no avail.
From the adverse action of the trial court, petitioner went
to the CA on a petition for certiorari, docketed
as CA-G.R. SP No. 55795.
In the herein challenged Resolution[7] dated January 26, 2000, the CA denied due
course to and dismissed the petition for petitioner’s failure to comply with
Section 3, Rule 46, infra, of the
1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, which mandates that certified true
copies of the documents or pleadings mentioned in the petition must be attached
thereto. Partly says the CA in its
assailed Resolution:
Except for the orders of the court a quo denying the motion for leave of court to file third-party
complaint dated July 26, 1999 and August 17, 1999 and the order dated September
20, 1999 clarifying the above two (2) orders and denying the motion for
reconsideration, other relevant documents attached to the petition are plain
photo copies and not certified copies pursuant to the Rules (Annexes
"D", p. 29; "E", p. 103; and "F", p. 133, Rollo).
There are also pertinent documents which were referred to
but not appended to the petition, such as petitioner's motion for
reconsideration filed on August 20, 1999, the pre-trial order dated February
25, 1998, motion for consolidation, order dated March 11, 1999 granting the
motion for consolidation, order of inhibition dated April 21, 1998, motion for
consolidation filed on May 25, 1998, and comment on the motion for leave of
court including the counter-comment/reply.
In time, petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration,
thereunder explaining that its failure to adhere to the rule was due to honest
mistake and excusable negligence and was not meant, in any slightest degree, to
defy the mandate of the procedural rules.
In the same motion, petitioner also maintained that it had now fully
complied with Section 3 of Rule 46 because certified true copies of the
documents/pleadings mentioned in its petition were already attached to its
motion.
In its subsequent Resolution[8] of
Hence, this recourse by the petitioner raising
the following issues:[9]
I
WHETHER THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN ADAMANTLY REFUSING TO
RECONSIDER ITS RESOLUTION OF
II
WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT
ACTED WITH GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION IN DENYING PETITIONER'S MOTION FOR LEAVE
TO FILE THIRD PARTY COMPLAINT.
We DENY.
Section 3, Rule 46, of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure,
as amended, provides:
SEC. 3. Contents
and filing of petition; effect of non-compliance with requirements. – xxx
xxx xxx xxx
It shall be filed in seven (7) clearly legible copies
together with proof of service thereof on the respondent with the original copy
intended for the court indicated as such by the petitioner, and shall be accompanied by a clearly legible
duplicate original or certified true copy of the judgment, order, resolution,
or ruling subject thereof, such material portions of the record as are referred to therein, and other documents
relevant or pertinent thereto. xxx
xx xxx xxx
The failure of the petitioner to comply with any of the
foregoing requirements shall be sufficient ground for the dismissal of the
petition. (Italics ours)
The above rule is clear.
Failure to comply with the requirement that the petition shall be
accompanied by a certified true copy of the resolutions, orders or any rulings
subject thereof is a sufficient ground for the dismissal of the petition.
Petitioner contends that its failure to attach the required
documents to its petition is due to honest mistake and excusable negligence and
that it was not meant to defy the mandate of the procedural rule. In Sea
Power Shipping Enterprises, Inc. v.
Court of Appeals, et al.,[10] the Court had already held that “oversight”
and “excusable negligence” have become an all too familiar and ready excuse on
the part of lawyers remiss in their bounden duty to comply with established
rules. Rules of procedure are tools designed
to promote efficiency and orderliness, as well as to facilitate attainment of
justice, such that strict adherence thereto is required. The application of the
Rules may be relaxed only when rigidity would result in a defeat of equity and
substantial justice,[11] which is not true in this case.
Even assuming that the petition filed in CA-G.R. SP No. 55795 is sufficient in
form, still the same is dismissible there being no grave abuse of discretion
committed by the trial court in issuing its order of August 17, 1999 which
denied the petitioner’s motion for leave of court to file third-party complaint
against its branch manager. Explicitly,
Section 11, Rule 6, of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, provides:
SEC. 11. Third (fourth,
etc.)-party complaint. – A third (fourth, etc.)-party complaint is a claim that
a defending party may, with leave of court, file against a person not a party
to the action, called the third (fourth, etc.)-party defendant, for
contribution, indemnity, subrogation or any other relief, in respect of his
opponent’s claim.
A third-party complaint is
actually a complaint independent of, and separate and distinct from, the
plaintiff’s complaint. Were it not for
the above rule, such third-party complaint would have to be filed independently
and separately from the original complaint. The purpose is to avoid circuitry
of action and unnecessary proliferation of lawsuits and of disposing
expeditiously in one litigation all the matters arising from one particular set
of facts.[12]
Be that as it may, trial courts
are not especially enjoined by law to admit a third-party complaint. They are
vested with discretion to allow or disallow a party to an action to implead an
additional party. Thus, a defendant
has no vested right to file a third-party complaint.[13]
In any event, whatever claim the petitioner
may have against its branch manager may,
as correctly ruled by the trial court in its Order of
WHEREFORE, the petition
is DENIED and the challenged resolutions of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 55795 are AFFIRMED.
Costs
against the petitioner.
SO ORDERED.
CANCIO C.
GARCIA
Associate Justice
WE
CONCUR:
REYNATO
S. PUNO
Chief Justice
Chairperson
|
ANGELINA
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ Associate Justice |
RENATO C. CORONA Associate Justice |
ADOLFO
S. AZCUNA
Associate Justice
C E R T I F I C A T I O
N
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, I
certify that the conclusions in the above decision had been reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the
Court’s Division.
REYNATO
S. PUNO
Chief Justice
[1] Penned by Associate Justice Mariano M. Umali and concurred in by Associate Justices Salome A. Montoya and Bernardo LL. Salas (all ret.); Rollo, pp. 43-45.
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9] Petitioner’s Memorandum, Rollo, pp. 388-408.
[10] 412 Phil. 603 (2001).
[11] Lustaña v. Jimena-Lazo, G.R. No. 143558,
[12] Firestore
Tire and Rubber Company of the
[13] Tayao v.