Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 2

PDIC vs.

Gidwani
Court of Appeals: The Court of Appeals ruled that
Facts: SOJ Caparas abused his discretion when he
granted the Motion for Reconsideration of PDIC,
Pursuant to several resolutions of the Monetary even though no new evidence was offered by PDIC
Board (MB) of the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas to support its allegations against Manu Gidwani
(BSP), the rural banks owned and controlled by the and his co-respondents.
Legacy Group of Companies (Legacy Banks) were
ordered closed and thereafter placed under the ISSUE: W/N the Motion for Reconsideration of
receivership of petitioner Philippine Deposit PDIC was valid? YES
Insurance Corporation (PDIC).
HELD: A Motion for Reconsideration doesn’t
Manu and wife Champa Gidwani and 86 other require as a ground newly Discovered Evidence.
individuals represented themselves to be owners of
four hundred seventy-one (471) deposit accounts Rule 37, Section 1 provides:
with the Legacy Banks and filed claims with PDIC.
Section 1. Grounds of and period for filing motion
The claims were processed and 683 checks were for new trial or reconsideration. - Within the period
issued in favor of the 86 individuals, excluding for taking an appeal, the aggrieved party may move
Spouses Gidwani. The checks specifically indicated the trial court to set aside the judgment or final
that such checks were payable to the payee’s order and grant a new trial for one or more of the
account only. following causes materially affecting the
substantial rights of said party:
However, the 86 individuals didn’t deposit the
crossed checks in their respective bank accounts, (a) Fraud, accident, mistake or excusable
but rather all the checks were credited to a single negligence which ordinary prudence could not have
account with RCBC Account No. 1-419-86822-8, guarded against and by reason of which such
owned by Manu Gidwani. aggrieved party has probably been impaired in his
rights; or
PDIC contends that the Spouses Gidwani and the
86 individuals, with the indispensable cooperation (b) Newly discovered evidence, which he could not,
of RCBC, deceived PDIC into issuing the 683 with reasonable diligence, have discovered and
checks amounting to P98,733,690.21 produced at the trial, and which if presented would
probably alter the result.
PDIC field a criminal complaint before the
Department of Justice (DOJ) Task Force on Within the same period, the aggrieved party may
Financial Fraud (DOJ Task Force) for estafa also move for reconsideration upon the grounds
through falsification of the RPC and money that the damages awarded are excessive, that the
laundering against the Spouses Gidwani and the evidence is insufficient to justify the decision or
86 other individuals. final order, or that the decision or final order is
contrary to law.
DOJ Task Force: Promulgated a Resolution
dismissing the Complaint of PDIC. As can be gleaned, a motion for reconsideration
may be granted if
PDIC filed a Motion for Reconsideration, but it was (1) the damages awarded are excessive,
denied.
(2) the evidence is insufficient to justify the
Unperturbed, the PDIC interposed a petition for decision or final order, or
review with the Office of the Secretary of Justice
(SOJ). (2) the decision or final order is contrary to law.

Justice Justiano: Undersecretary of Justice The judicial or quasi-judicial body concerned may
Justiano issued a resolution denying PDIC’s arrive at any of the three enumerated conclusions
appeal. even without requiring additional evidence.
To be sure, the introduction of newly discovered
SOJ Caparas: However, SOJ Caparas overturned additional evidence is a ground for new trial or
Justice Justiano’s Resolution and granted PDIC’s a de novo appreciation of the case, but not for the
Motion for Reconsideration. filing of a motion for reconsideration.

Aggrieved, the Spouses Gidwani elevated the


matter to the Court of Appeals.
In the case at bar, the CA contends that there is
no ground of MFR because no new evidence was
presented.

Judicial proceedings even prohibit the practice of


introducing new evidence on reconsideration since
it potentially deprives the opposing party of his or
her right to due process.
While quasi-judicial bodies in administrative
proceedings may extend leniency in this regard and
allow the admission of evidence offered on
reconsideration or on appeal, this is merely
permissive and does not translate to a requirement
of attaching additional evidence to support motions
for reconsideration.

***End of Digest***

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi