Koh v.

IAC
Depositions | Sept. 23, 1986 | Feria

SUMMARY: Koh’s father sent her $500 through the Metropolitan Bank & trust Company which is the remitting bank of
respondent First Interstate Bank of California. But due to a computer mistake, respondent Bank’s Los Angeles office
erroneously overstated the amount of $8500 instead of $500. It was deposited to her account and she subsequently
withdrew it. Koh admitted that what happened was true and that she’s offering the bank to pay it in installments of $100
but the offer was rejected. The Officer in Charge of RTC Makati sent the following “NOTICE OF CASE STATUS” to the
parties through their respective lawyers. Stated on it, “If a party believes that those modes of discovery are not
applicable, necessary or feasible with respect to him, he shall file a manifestation to that effect.”No manifestation was
filed by the parties’ lawyers. And for the non-compliance with Order the case was dismissed. The respondent Bank
refilled its case but Koh invoked res judicata and filed for a motion to dismiss. It was denied by the judge. Elevated to the
IAC, it was also denied. SC ruled that the decision was not on the merits thus respondent Bank could still refile the case.

DOCTRINE: The rules on discovery (Rules 24, 25, 26, 27, 28 and 29 of the Revised Rules of Court) are intended to enable
a party to obtain knowledge of material facts within the knowledge of the adverse party or of third parties through
depositions; to obtain knowledge of material facts or admissions from the adverse party through written interrogatories;
to obtain admissions from the adverse party regarding the genuineness of relevant documents or relevant matters of
fact through requests for admission; to inspect relevant documents or objects and lands or other property in the
possession or control of the adverse party; and to determine the physical or mental condition of a party when such is in
controversy. This mutual discovery enables a party to discover the evidence of the adverse party and thus facilitates an
amicable settlement or expedites the trial of the case. All the parties are required to lay their cards on the table so that
justice can be rendered on the merits of the case. Trial judges should, therefore, encourage the proper utilization of the
rules on discovery. However, recourse to discovery procedures is not mandatory. If the parties do not choose to resort
to such procedures, the pre-trial conference should be set pursuant to the mandatory provisions of Section 1 of Rule 20.

FACTS OF THE CASE:

Nature Petition for review decision of IAC

Parties Petitioners: Maria Koh

Respondents: IAC, Hon. Madayag as Judge of RTC Makati

PROCEDURAL HISTORY:

RTC Respondent Bank filed a complaint against petitioner to recover

sum of $7,434 or its Peso equivalent which, due to a computer
error, it had overpaid to her. Complaint alleged that:
 Petitioner’s father sent petitioner $500 through Metropalitan
Bank and Trust Company (remitting bank of respondent Bank)
 Due to computer mistake, respondent Bank’s LA Office
erroneously overstated the amount to $8,500 instead. Thus,
respondent Bank issued and deliver to petitioner such
amount.
 Petitioner deposited to her account and subsequently
withdrew.

In her Answer, petitioner admitted the allegations in the

complaint and alleged that immediately after receipt of formal
 demand letter to return the overpayment.
 She offered to pay respondent Bank through its lawyer in
installments but such offer was rejected.
 Note: No copy of Answer was attached to the petition for
certiorari filed by petitioner with the IAC. It was only in the
Comment of respondents’ counsel filed with SC that copy of
Answer was attached.

Officer-in-Charge of the RTC sent “Notice of Case Status” 1 to

parties through their respective lawyers.
 No manifestation was filed by the parties’ lawyers

Judge issued Order dismissing the case for non-compliance.

Respondent Bank, through new counsel, refiled its

complaint presided over by respondent Judge.
 Petitioner filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on the
round of res judicata

Respondent judge denied motion to dimiss and MR.

 Notwithstanding failure to comply with notice of case status,
court should have set the case for pre-trial conference since
the last pleading had been filed and there are no other
conditions to be complied with
 Bette rfor defendant to have a definite and clear-cut decision
as to liability or non-liability instead of a win on a technicality

Court of Appeals Petitioner filed an application for certiorari with the IAC praying that
orders be null and void.
 IAC affirmed respondent judge. Order of dismissal was null
and void since it did not have force of a judgment being
merely a “notice”. Thus, not a bar to the refiling of the bank’s
complaint.

Supreme Court Petitioner filed appeal to this Court.

ISSUES & RATIO:

1) W/N the orders denying the motion to dismiss and MR are valid? YES

1
Please take notice that cases where issues have been joined will be scheduled for pre-trial conference only after Rules 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, and 29—where applicable,
necessary and or feasible—have been resorted to by the parties.

If a party believes that those modes of discovery are not applicable, necessary or feasible with respect to him, he shall file a manifestation to that effect.

The pre-trial conference, shall be scheduled as soon as the respective manifestations—of having resorted to, or of dispensing with, those modes of discovery—have
been filed by the parties.

The party, who has dispensed with those modes of discovery shall be deemed to have waived resort thereto, and, unless for good cause shown, motion to resort
thereto, after termination of the pretrial, shall not be granted. The costs entailed by the waiving party in presenting evidence during trial that could have been
obtained through any of those modes of discovery which were waived, shall not be assessed against the adverse party nor awarded as part of the litigation expenses.
If, after 30 days from receipt of this notice, no such manifestation has been filed, the case shall be archived or dismissed as the case may be. Upon Order of the Court,
this 19th day of August 1983. Makati, Metro Manila.
  With the admission in petitioner’s Answer of the allegations in the Complaint that due to computer error, there
was an overpayment to her of P8,000 coupled with an offer to pay respondent Bank, there is no jutification for
ruling that an order dismissing the first complaint operated as an adjudication on the merits or constituted a bar
to the second complaint.
o Trial court could have been rendered a judgment on the pleadings in the first case in favor of
respondent Bank.
 It was respondent Bank’s counsel who should have taken precaution of complying with the instructions but
fortunately, such omissions of counsel are not fatal to its cause in view of the defective procedure.
 The rules on discovery (Rules 24, 25, 26, 27, 28 and 29 of the Revised Rules of Court) are intended to enable a
party to obtain knowledge of material facts within the knowledge of the adverse party or of third parties
through depositions; to obtain knowledge of material facts or admissions from the adverse party through
written interrogatories; to obtain admissions from the adverse party regarding the genuineness of relevant
documents or relevant matters of fact through requests for admission; to inspect relevant documents or objects
and lands or other property in the possession or control of the adverse party; and to determine the physical or
mental condition of a party when such is in controversy.
o Mutual discovery enables party to discover evidence of adverse party and facilitates amicable
settlement or expedites the trial of case.
o Trial judges should therefore encourage the proper utilization of the rules of discovery. However,
recourse is not mandatory.
 Petitioner argues that Judge was wrong in stating that pre-trial should have been issued since last pleading had
been filed because notice was issued before the answer to the counterclaim was filed.
o In this case, petitioner’s counterlaim did not require an answer. Since the counterclaim was the last
pleading, court should have issued a pre-trial order after its submission.

DISPOSITIVE: WHEREFORE, the decision of the appellate court is affirmed, with costs against petitioner. This decision is
immediately executory.