G.R. No. 143338 - THE CONSOLIDATED BANK AND TRUST CORPORATION (SOLIDBANK), VS. DEL MONTE MOTOR WORKS, INC., NARCISO G. MORALES,[1] AND SPOUSE.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, the instant case against defendants Del Monte Motor Works, Inc. and Narciso O. Morales and spouse, is hereby DISMISSED, with costs against the plaintiff. The trial court's finding was affirmed by the Court of Appeals in the assailed decision now before us. The dispositive portion of the appellate court's decision reads: WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, the decision of the Regional Trial Court, Manila, Branch 27, dated December 28, 1987 dismissing plaintiff-appellant['s] complaint is hereby AFFIRMED . Cost against the plaintiff-appellant. [20] Petitioner thereafter filed a motion for reconsideration dated 14 December 1999 which was denied for lack of merit in a resolution of the Court of Appeals promulgated on 11 May 2000. [21] Aggrieved by the appellate court's ruling, petitioner now seeks redress from this Court imputing the following errors on the Court of Appeals: I THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED WHEN IT FOUND THAT PRIVATE RESPONDENTS DENIED THE MATERIAL ALLEGATIONS OF PETITIONER SOLIDBANK'S COMPLAINT, DESPITE THE PRESENCE OF INDUBITABLE FACTS CLEARLY POINTING TO THE FACT THAT SAID PRIVATE RESPONDENTS ADMITTED THE GENUINENESS AND DUE EXECUTION OF THE SUBJECT PROMISSORY NOTE. II THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED WHEN IT UPHELD THE EXCLUSION OF EXHIBIT `E', THE SECOND ORIGINAL OF THE PROMISSORY NOTE, DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE ORIGINAL OF EXHIBIT `A' (XEROX COPY OF THE DUPLICATE ORIGINAL OF THE PROMISSORY NOTE) WAS ACTUALLY IN THE POSSESSION OF PRIVATE RESPONDENTS, THUS WARRANTING THE ADMISSION OF SECONDARY EVIDENCE. III THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN NOT HOLDING THAT THE TRIAL JUDGE SHOULD HAVE INHIBITED HIMSELF FROM TAKING COGNIZANCE OF AND FROM TRYING AND DECIDING THE INSTANT CASE CONSIDERING HIS PERCEIVED AND MANIFEST BIAS AND PARTIALITY IN FAVOR OF THE PRIVATE RESPONDENTS TO THE GRAVE PREJUDICE OF PETITIONER SOLIDBANK. [22] The petition is meritorious. In resolving the case against petitioner, the appellate court held that contrary to petitioner's stance, respondents were able to generally and specifically deny under oath the genuineness and due execution of the promissory note, thus: There can be no dispute to the fact that the allegations in the answer (Record, p. 20, 26-27), of both defendants, they denied generally and specifically under oath the genuineness and due execution of the promissory note and by way of special and affirmative defenses herein states that he (MORALES) never signed the promissory note attached to the complaint (Exh. A) in his personal and/or individual capacity. Moreover, what appears in the record (Record, p. 20) was an admission of paragraphs 1 & 2 but they deny generally and specifically the rest of the allegations. It would be considered that there is a sufficient compliance of the requirement of the law for specific denial. [23] We hold otherwise. The pertinent portion of the Rules of Court on the matter provides: SEC. 8. How to contest such documents. When