G.R. No. 136804 February 19, 2003 MANUFACTURERS HANOVER TRUST CO.

and/or CHEMICAL
BANK, petitioners, vs. RAFAEL MA. GUERRERO, respondent.

FACTS: Respondent Rafael Ma. Guerrero filed a complaint for damages, allegedly for (1) illegally
withheld taxes charged against interests on his checking account with the Bank; (2) a returned check
worth US$18,000.00 due to signature verification problems; and (3) unauthorized conversion of his
account, against petitioner Manufacturers Hanover Trust Co. and/or Chemical Bank with the RTC of
Manila.

The Bank filed its Answer alleging that by stipulation Guerrero’s account is governed by New York law
and this law does not permit any of Guerrero’s claims except actual damages. The Bank then filed a
Motion for Partial Summary Judgment seeking the dismissal of Guerrero’s claims and contended that the
trial should be limited to the issue of actual damages. Guerrero opposed the motion.

The affidavit of Alyssa Walden, a New York attorney, supported the Bank’s Motion for Partial Summary
Judgment. Walden’s affidavit, which was authenticated by the Philippine Consular Office in New York,
stated that Guerrero’s New York bank account stipulated that the governing law is New York law and that
this law bars all of Guerrero’s claims except actual damages.

RTC denied the Bank’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and its motion for reconsideration. CA
assailed RTC’s decision and ruled that the Walden affidavit does not serve as proof of the New York law
and jurisprudence relied on by the Bank to support its motion. CA clarified that the Walden affidavit is not
the supporting affidavit referred to in Section 2, Rule 34 that would prove the lack of genuine issue
between the parties. The CA concluded that even if the Walden affidavit is used for purposes of summary
judgment, the Bank must still comply with the procedure prescribed by the Rules to prove the foreign law.

ISSUE: WON petitioner’s affidavit, which proves foreign law as a fact, is “hearsay” and thereby cannot
serve as proof of the New York Law relied upon by petitioners in their motion for summary judgement.

RULING: There can be no summary judgment where questions of fact are in issue or where material
allegations of the pleadings are in dispute.  The 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.8 Foreign laws are not a matter of judicial notice. 9 Like any other
fact, they must be alleged and proven. Certainly, the conflicting allegations as to whether New York law or
Philippine law applies to Guerrero’s claims present a clear dispute on material allegations which can be
resolved only by a trial on the merits.

Under Section 24 of Rule 132, the record of public documents of a sovereign authority or tribunal may be
proved by (1) an official publication thereof or (2) a copy attested by the officer having the legal custody
thereof. Such official publication or copy must be accompanied, if the record is not kept in the Philippines,
with a certificate that the attesting officer has the legal custody thereof. The certificate may be issued by
any of the authorized Philippine embassy or consular officials stationed in the foreign country in which the
record is kept, and authenticated by the seal of his office. The attestation must state, in substance, that
the copy is a correct copy of the original, or a specific part thereof, as the case may be, and must be
under the official seal of the attesting officer.

The Bank, however, cannot rely on Willamette Iron and Steel Works v. Muzzal or Collector of Internal
Revenue v. Fisher, - which the SC ruled that the Section 41, Rule 123 (Section 25, Rule 132 of the
Revised Rules of Court) does not exclude the presentation of other competent evidence to prove the
existence of a foreign law and considered the testimony under oath of an attorney-at-law of San
Francisco, California, who quoted verbatim a section of California Civil Code and who stated that the
same was in force at the time the obligations were contracted, as sufficient evidence to establish the
existence of said law -, to support its cause. These cases involved attorneys testifying in open court
during the trial in the Philippines and quoting the particular foreign laws sought to be established. On the
other hand, the Walden affidavit was taken abroad ex parte and the affiant never testified in open court.
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.

The Walden affidavit states conclusions from the affiant’s personal interpretation and opinion of the facts
of the case vis a vis the alleged laws and jurisprudence without citing any law in particular. The citations
in the Walden affidavit of various U.S. court decisions do not constitute proof of the official records or
decisions of the U.S. courts. While the Bank attached copies of some of the U.S. court decisions cited in
the Walden affidavit, these copies do not comply with Section 24 of Rule 132 on proof of official records
or decisions of foreign courts.

The Bank’s intention in presenting the Walden affidavit is to prove New York law and jurisprudence.
However, because of the failure to comply with Section 24 of Rule 132 on how to prove a foreign law and
decisions of foreign courts, the Walden affidavit did not prove the current state of New York law and
jurisprudence. Thus, the Bank has only alleged, but has not proved, what New York law and
jurisprudence are on the matters at issue.