543 Phil. 34
GARCIA, J.:
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 November 13, 1998:[4]
- Erroneous deductions from her Current Account No. 164-001371-5 of the following:
- The amount of P23,425.00 on March 4, 1997;
- The amount of P10,000.00, P35,000.00 and P100,000.00 or a total of P168,425.00 on April 1, 1997;
- The total amount of P4,540,000.00 without debit memos on different dates;
- 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;
- Erroneous debiting from her account of PVB -Tuguegarao Branch Check No. 6969 in the amount of P20,000.00.
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.
- Allowing the unauthorized overdraft of the respondent in the total amount of P1,475,731.43.
- 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.
- Making good CBC Check No. 111459 drawn by respondent for P250,000.00 despite the fact that said check was not sufficiently funded.
- Granting bills purchased facility without approval of the petitioner.
- Allowing fund transfers from client's accounts to other accounts in violation of the petitioner' policy prohibiting fund transfers between accounts not owned by the same party.
- Defying the lawful order of her superior.
- And other numerous acts and omissions.
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).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.
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.
We DENY.I
WHETHER THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN ADAMANTLY REFUSING TO RECONSIDER ITS RESOLUTION OF JANUARY 26, 2000 AND TO REINSTATE THE PETITION DESPITE COMPLIANCE BY PETITIONER WITH THE REQUIREMENT IN SECTION 3, RULE 46 OF THE 1997 RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE.II
WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT ACTED WITH GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION IN DENYING PETITIONER'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE THIRD PARTY COMPLAINT.
SEC. 3. Contents and filing of petition; effect of non-compliance with requirements. - xxxThe 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.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. xxxxx 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)
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]