391 Phil. 362
"3. That sometime on February 10, 1984, on representations, of defendant Spouses Rafael and Elena DINGLASAN, plaintiffs, through their then Attorney in fact, Florencio Junior Garcia, were prevailed upon to time deposit the following amounts of money issuing to them the following time deposit certificates:Respondent Rural Bank of Sara, Inc., Anthony Cabugso, and Leda Suello, (manager and cashier, respectively, of respondent bank), filed their answer contending by way of special and affirmative defenses that:
Name Time Deposit
Amount Maturity Date Ma. Patricia Garcia 1275 P35,000 February 11, 1986 Nicanor Gutierrez 1276 40,000 -do- Belen B. Gutierrez 1277 35,000 -do- Grace M.B. Gutierrez 1278 40,000 -do- Caroline M. B. Gutierrez 1279 35,000 -do- Gerwin Garcia 1280 33,000 -do- Gerson Garcia 1281 35,788 -do Gilmer Garcia 1282 30,000 -do Total P283,788
(Xerox copies attached hereto as Annex A,B,C,D,E,F,G and H) with interest at 17% per annum starting from Feb. 10, 1984, all defendants assuring plaintiffs that on the maturity dates (Feb. 11, 1986) of the aforesaid Time Deposit Certificates, the same, upon surrender, will be paid in cash;
4. That on Feb. 11, 1986, plaintiffs through their Attorney in fact, (Florencio Junior Garcia) went to defendant Rural Bank, for the purpose of surrendering said Time Deposit Certificates, and to receive the payment from defendants of the amounts therein stated totaling P283,788, plus interest thereon at 17% per annum for 731 days or two years, the interest then amounting to P96,487.92 as of Feb. 11, 1986, for a total of P380,275.92 as of Feb. 11, 1986;
5. That defendants acting through Anthony Casugbo and Leda Suelo (sic), Manager and Cashier respectively of defendant Rural Bank, refused to pay, and told plaintiffs' attorney in fact, to return after one month, which said attorney in fact did, not only one month thereafter, but on several other occasions thereafter either by himself (attorney in fact), or through other authorized representatives; on all of these occasions the promises to pay the time deposits and interest thereon were not fulfilled;
6. That impatient at waiting, plaintiffs, on August 27, 1987, through counsel, sent a letter of demand to defendants, giving to defendants 30 days from receipt within which to pay the Time Deposit plus the interest increments thereof, which letter (Annex I) was received by them on Sept. 4, 1987 (Annex I-1);
However, until the date of the filing of this complaint, which is more than 30 days from Sept. 4, 1987 defendants have not even bothered to reply or to make any arrangements acceptable to plaintiffs;
x x x"
"'4. The Complaint states no cause of action against the defendants in as much as the deposits (sic) named in paragraph 3 of the Complaint have not at all authorized and empowered alleged attorney-in-fact, Florencio Junior Garcia, to transact with the defendant bank, Rural bank of Sara (Iloilo), Inc.. Neither have they authorized him to withdraw their deposits with defendant bank;The respondent spouses, Rafael Dinglasan and Maria Elena Dinglasan, likewise filed their answer contending by way of special and affirmative defenses, that:
'5. The said depositors named in paragraph 3 of the complaint never in the past nor up to the present time approached the bank for withdrawal of their deposits, and (sic) reason of and in compliance with the law on secrecy of deposits, the defendant bank cannot divulge to anybody who has not been properly authorized, anything about their deposits. Besides the bank has to be strict with the requirements of specimen signatures of its depositors so that it usually requires proper authorizations duly notarized by a Notary Public. If anybody approaches defendant bank for and in behalf of a depositors (sic) the bank would require such authorization, otherwise no transaction will be made with him;
'6. Since no applications for withdrawal were received by defendant bank from its depositors named in paragraph 3 of the complaint, there was no reason at all to allow alleged attorney-in-fact, Florencio Junior Garcia, who never was properly authorized, to transact for and in behalf of said depositors;
'7. The herein attorney-in-fact, Florencio Junior Garcia, has no capacity to sue and be sued, being not the real party interest (sic) nor has the (sic) authority from the alleged plaintiffs sue (sic) and be sued;
8. There was no valid or legal withdrawal made by the alleged plaintiffs of their alleged deposits, hence it was not legally possible for defendant bank to act with respect to such deposits in view of the prohibition mandated by the law on secrecy of deposits.'"
"4. The complaint states no cause of action against defendants;What the petitioners did was to present a Motion for Summary Judgment, asseverating that they are entitled to a judgment as a matter of law, since the pleadings and supporting affidavits submitted are barren of any genuine issue which may be controverted.
5. There is no privity of contract between plaintiffs and defendants;
6. Attorney-in-Fact Florencio Junior Garcia has no apparent authority from plaintiffs to file the instant complaint."
I. THE COURT OF APPEALS HAS DECIDED A QUESTION OF SUBSTANCE NOT IN ACCORD WITH LAW AND APPLICABLE DECISIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT IN HOLDING THAT THERE ARE GENUINE ISSUES AS TO MATERIAL FACTS THAT BAR RENDITION OF SUMMARY JUDGMENT.The Petition is devoid of merit.
II. THE COURT OF APPEALS HAS DECIDED A QUESTION OF SUBSTANCE NOT IN ACCORD WITH LAW AND APPLICABLE DECISIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT IN NOT ORDERING RESPONDENT COURT TO GRANT THE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT.
"SECTION 1. Summary judgment for claimant. - A party seeking to recover upon a claim, counterclaim, or cross-claim or to obtain a declaratory relief may, at any time after the pleading in answer thereto has been served, move with supporting affidavits for a summary judgment in his favor upon all or any part thereof."A summary judgment is one granted upon motion by a party for an expeditious settlement of the case, there appearing from the pleadings, depositions, admissions, and affidavits that there are no important questions or issues of fact posed (except as to the amount of damages) and therefore, the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.
"SEC. 3. Motion and proceedings thereon. - The motion shall be served at least ten (10) days before the time specified for the hearing. The adverse party prior to the day of hearing may serve opposing affidavits. After the hearing, the judgment sought shall be rendered forthwith if the pleading, depositions, and admissions on file together with the affidavits, show that, except as to the amount of damages, there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." *
"1. Whether or not Florencio Junior Garcia is properly authorized to file the complaint for the plaintiffs named in the title of the complaint.Verily, there is a need to find out whether Florencio Junior Garcia was duly authorized by the plaintiffs named in Civil Case No. 3777 to file the complaint against the private respondents. It is worthy to note that while the complaint states that the plaintiffs therein mentioned empowered Florencio Junior Garcia to collect the sums due them from the respondent bank, the records on hand show that only four of the eight plaintiffs executed a special power of attorney authorizing Florencio Junior Garcia to deal with respondent bank. Contrarily, it is argued that the absence of a special power of attorney to withdraw the time deposit is of no moment, considering that the present case for collection in the name of the plaintiffs sufficiently shows the latter's intention to collect their money through Florencio Junior Garcia. Apparently, the foregoing theory is meritorious. But the undeniable fact, however, is that not one of the plaintiffs verified the contents of the complaint; and neither was there in the records a special power of attorney authorizing Florencio Junior Garcia to institute the present case against private respondents. Thus the issue of whether or not the plaintiffs named in Civil Case No. 3777, constituted Florencio Junior Garcia as their attorney in fact with authority to bring subject suit for collection of sum of money against the private respondents.
xxx xxx xxx
2. Whether or not defendants (private respondents) spouses Dinglasan may be held jointly and severally liable with their co-defendant (co-private respondent) rural bank."