G.R. No.

170498               January 9, 2013 Metrobank filed a motion for bill of particulars, 12 seeking to clarify certain ambiguous
statements in AMC’s answer. The RTC granted the motion but AMC failed to submit the
METROPOLITAN BANK & TRUST COMPANY, Petitioner,  required bill of particulars. Hence, Metrobank filed a motion to strike out the third-party
vs. complaint.13
ABSOLUTE MANAGEMENT CORPORATION, Respondent.
In the meantime, Metrobank filed a motion to dismiss14 against AMC on the ground that
DECISION the latter engaged in prohibited forum shopping. According to Metrobank, AMC’s claim
against it is the same claim that it raised against Chua’s estate in Special Proceedings
No. 99-0023 before the RTC of Pasay City, Branch 112. The RTC subsequently denied
BRION, J.: this motion.15

We resolve petitioner Metropolitan Bank & Trust Company's (Metro bank's) petition for The RTC of Quezon City opted to defer consideration 16 of Metrobank’s motion to strike
review on certiorari1 seeking the reversal of the decision2 dated August 25, 2005 and out third-party complaint17and it instead granted AMC’s motion for leave to serve written
the resolution3 dated November 17, 2005 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP interrogatories on the third-party defendant.18 While Metrobank filed its answer to the
No. 86336. The assailed decision affirmed the order4 dated May 7, 2004 of the Regional written interrogatories, AMC was again directed by the RTC, in an order 19 dated August
Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City, Branch 80. The RTC had denied the admission of 13, 2003, to submit its bill of particulars. Instead, AMC filed a motion for
Metrobank's Fourth-Party Complaint5 against the Estate of Jose L. Chua for being a reconsideration20 which was denied in an order21 dated October 28, 2003. AMC still did
money claim that falls under Section 5, Rule 86 of the Rules of Court; the claim should not file its bill of particulars. The RTC, on the other hand, did not act on Metrobank’s
have been filed in the pending judicial settlement of Chua’s estate before the RTC of motion to strike out AMC’s third-party complaint.22
Pasay City. The CA affirmed the RTC’s order based on the same ground.
In its answer23 dated December 1, 2003, Metrobank admitted that it deposited the
Factual Antecedents checks in question to the account of Ayala Lumber and Hardware, a sole proprietorship
Chua owned and managed. The deposit was allegedly done with the knowledge and
On October 5, 2000, Sherwood Holdings Corporation, Inc. (SHCI) filed a complaint for consent of AMC. According to
sum of money against Absolute Management Corporation (AMC). The complaint was
docketed as Civil Case No. Q-00-42105 and was assigned to the RTC of Quezon City, Metrobank, Chua then gave the assurance that the arrangement for the handling of the
Branch 80.6 checks carried AMC’s consent. Chua also submitted documents showing his position
and interest in AMC. These documents, as well as AMC’s admission in its answer that it
SHCI alleged in its complaint that it made advance payments to AMC for the purchase allowed Chua to manage AMC with a relative free hand, show that it knew of Chua’s
of 27,000 pieces of plywood and 16,500 plyboards in the sum of ₱12,277,500.00, arrangement with Metrobank. Further, Chua’s records show that the proceeds of the
covered by Metrobank Check Nos. 1407668502, 140768507, 140768530, 140768531, checks were remitted to AMC which cannot therefore now claim that it did not receive
140768532, 140768533 and 140768534. These checks were all crossed, and were all these proceeds.
made payable to AMC. They were given to Chua, AMC’s General Manager, in 1998.7
Metrobank also raised the defense of estoppel. According to Metrobank, AMC had
Chua died in 1999, 8 and a special proceeding for the settlement of his estate was knowledge of its arrangements with Chua for several years. Despite this arrangement,
commenced before the RTC of Pasay City. This proceeding was pending at the time AMC did not object to nor did it call the attention of Metrobank about Chua’s alleged
AMC filed its answer with counterclaims and third-party complaint.9 lack of authority to deposit the checks in Ayala Lumber and Hardware’s account. At this
point, AMC is already estopped from questioning Chua’s authority to deposit these
SHCI made demands on AMC, after Chua’s death, for allegedly undelivered items checks in Ayala Lumber and Hardware’s account.
worth ₱8,331,700.00. According to AMC, these transactions could not be found in its
records. Upon investigation, AMC discovered that in 1998, Chua received from SHCI 18 Lastly, Metrobank asserted that AMC gave Chua unbridled control in managing AMC’s
Metrobank checks worth ₱31,807,500.00. These were all payable to AMC and were affairs. This measure of control amounted to gross negligence that was the proximate
crossed or "for payee’s account only."10 cause of the loss that AMC must now bear.

In its answer with counterclaims and third-party complaint, 11 AMC averred that it had no Subsequently, Metrobank filed a motion for leave to admit fourth-party
knowledge of Chua’s transactions with SHCI and it did not receive any money from the complaint24 against Chua’s estate. It alleged that Chua’s estate should reimburse
latter. AMC also asked the RTC to hold Metrobank liable for the subject checks in case Metrobank in case it would be held liable in the third-party complaint filed against it by
it is adjudged liable to SHCI. AMC.

The RTC’s Ruling

In an order25 dated May 7, 2004, the RTC denied Metrobank’s motion. It likewise denied According to AMC, the petition’s annexes are mostly Metrobank’s pleadings and court
Metrobank’s motion for reconsideration in an order26 dated July 7, 2004. issuances. It did not append all relevant AMC pleadings before the RTC and the CA.
For this reason, the petition should have been dismissed outright.
The RTC categorized Metrobank’s allegation in the fourth-party complaint as a "cobro
de lo indebido"27 – a kind of quasi-contract that mandates recovery of what has been Issues
improperly paid. Quasi-contracts fall within the concept of implied contracts that must
be included in the claims required to be filed with the judicial settlement of the The parties’ arguments, properly joined, present to us the following issues:
deceased’s estate under Section 5, Rule 86 of the Rules of Court. As such claim, it
should have been filed in Special Proceedings No. 99-0023, not before the RTC as a
fourth-party complaint. The RTC, acting in the exercise of its general jurisdiction, does 1) Whether the petition for review on certiorari filed by Metrobank before the
not have the authority to adjudicate the fourth-party complaint. As a trial court hearing Supreme Court complies with Section 4, Rule 45 of the Rules of Court; and
an ordinary action, it cannot resolve matters pertaining to special proceedings because
the latter is subject to specific rules. 2) Whether Metrobank’s fourth-party complaint against Chua’s estate should
be allowed.
Metrobank responded to the RTC ruling by filing a petition for certiorari 28 under Rule 65
before the CA. The Court’s Ruling

The CA’s Ruling The Present Petition Complies With Section 4, Rule 45 of the Rules of Court

The CA affirmed the RTC’s ruling that Metrobank’s fourth-party complaint should have AMC posits that Metrobank’s failure to append relevant AMC pleadings submitted to the
been filed in Special Proceedings No. 99-0023.29 According to the CA, the relief that RTC and to the CA violated Section 4, Rule 45 of the Rules of Court,32 and is a
Metrobank prayed for was based on a quasi-contract and was a money claim sufficient ground to dismiss the petition under Section 5, Rule 45 of the Rules of
categorized as an implied contract that should be filed under Section 5, Rule 86 of the Court.33
Rules of Court.
We disagree with AMC’s position.
Based on the statutory construction principle of lex specialis derogat generali, the CA
held that Section 5, Rule 86 of the Rules of Court is a special provision that should In F.A.T. Kee Computer Systems, Inc. v. Online Networks International, Inc., 34 Online
prevail over the general provisions of Section 11, Rule 6 of the Rules of Court. The Networks International, Inc. similarly assailed F.A.T. Kee Computer Systems, Inc.’s
latter applies to money claims in ordinary actions while a money claim against a person failure to attach the transcript of stenographic notes (TSN) of the RTC proceedings, and
already deceased falls under the settlement of his estate that is governed by the rules claimed this omission to be a violation of Section 4, Rule 45 of the Rules of Court that
on special proceedings. If at all, rules for ordinary actions only apply suppletorily to warranted the petition’s dismissal. The Court held that the defect was not fatal, as the
special proceedings. TSN of the proceedings before the RTC forms part of the records of the case. Thus,
there was no incurable omission that warranted the outright dismissal of the petition.
The Present Petition
The Court significantly pointed out in F.A.T. Kee that the requirement in Section 4, Rule
In its present petition for review on certiorari,30 Metrobank asserts that it should be 45 of the Rules of Court is not meant to be an absolute rule whose violation would
allowed to file a fourth-party complaint against Chua’s estate in the proceedings before automatically lead to the petition’s dismissal.35 The Rules of Court has not been
the RTC; its fourth-party complaint was filed merely to enforce its right to be reimbursed intended to be totally rigid. In fact, the Rules of Court provides that the Supreme Court
by Chua’s estate in case Metrobank is held liable to AMC. Hence, Section 11, Rule 6 of "may require or allow the filing of such pleadings, briefs, memoranda or documents as it
the Rules of Court should apply. may deem necessary within such periods and under such conditions as it may consider
appropriate";36 and "[i]f the petition is given due course, the Supreme Court may require
AMC, in its comment,31 maintains the line that the CA and the RTC rulings should be the elevation of the complete record of the case or specified parts thereof within fifteen
followed, i.e., that Metrobank’s claim is a quasi-contract that should be filed as a claim (15) days from notice."37 These provisions are in keeping with the overriding standard
under Section 5, Rule 86 of the Rules of Court. that procedural rules should be liberally construed to promote their objective and to
assist the parties in obtaining a just, speedy and inexpensive determination of every
action or proceeding.38
AMC also challenges the form of Metrobank’s petition for failure to comply with Section
4, Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. This provision requires petitions filed before the
Supreme Court to be accompanied by "such material portions of the record as would Under this guiding principle, we do not see Metrobank’s omission to be a fatal one that
support the petition." should warrant the petition’s outright dismissal. To be sure, the omission to submit the
adverse party’s pleadings in a petition before the Court is not a commendable practice
as it may lead to an unduly biased narration of facts and arguments that masks the real unjust enrichment.42 The Civil Code provides an enumeration of quasi-contracts,43 but
issues before the Court. Such skewed presentation could lead to the waste of the the list is not exhaustive and merely provides examples.44
Court’s time in sifting through the maze of the parties’ narrations of facts and arguments
and is a danger the Rules of Court seeks to avoid. According to the CA, Metrobank’s fourth-party complaint falls under the quasi-contracts
enunciated in Article 2154 of the Civil Code.45 Article 2154 embodies the concept
Our examination of Metrobank’s petition shows that it contains AMC’s opposition to its "solutio indebiti" which arises when something is delivered through mistake to a person
motion to admit fourth-party complaint among its annexes. The rest of the pleadings who has no right to demand it. It obligates the latter to return what has been received
have been subsequently submitted as attachments in Metrobank’s Reply. A reading of through mistake.46
these pleadings shows that their arguments are the same as those stated in the orders
of the trial court and the Court of Appeals. Thus, even if Metrobank’s petition did not Solutio indebiti, as defined in Article 2154 of the Civil Code, has two indispensable
contain some of AMC’s pleadings, the Court still had the benefit of a clear narration of requisites: first, that something has been unduly delivered through mistake; and
facts and arguments according to both parties’ perspectives. In this broader view, the second, that something was received when there was no right to demand it.47
mischief that the Rules of Court seeks to avoid has not really been present. If at all, the
omission is not a grievous one that the spirit of liberality cannot address.
In its fourth-party complaint, Metrobank claims that Chua’s estate should reimburse it if
it becomes liable on the checks that it deposited to Ayala Lumber and Hardware’s
The Merits of the Main Issue account upon Chua’s instructions.

The main issue poses to us two essential points that must be addressed. First, are This fulfills the requisites of solutio indebiti. First, Metrobank acted in a manner akin to a
quasi-contracts included in claims that should be filed pursuant to Rule 86, Section 5 of mistake when it deposited the AMC checks to Ayala Lumber and Hardware’s account;
the Rules of Court? Second, if so, is Metrobank’s claim against the Estate of Jose Chua because of Chua’s control over AMC’s operations, Metrobank assumed that the checks
based on a quasi-contract? payable to AMC could be deposited to Ayala Lumber and Hardware’s account. Second,
Ayala Lumber and Hardware had no right to demand and receive the checks that were
Quasi-contracts are included in deposited to its account; despite Chua’s control over AMC and Ayala Lumber and
claims that should be filed under Rule Hardware, the two entities are distinct, and checks exclusively and expressly payable to
86, Section 5 of the Rules of Court one cannot be deposited in the account of the other. This disjunct created an obligation
on the part of Ayala Lumber and Hardware, through its sole proprietor, Chua, to return
In Maclan v. Garcia,39 Gabriel Maclan filed a civil case to recover from Ruben Garcia the amount of these checks to Metrobank.
the necessary expenses he spent as possessor of a piece of land. Garcia acquired the
land as an heir of its previous owner. He set up the defense that this claim should have The Court notes, however, that its description of Metrobank’s fourth-party complaint as
been filed in the special proceedings to settle the estate of his predecessor. Maclan, on a claimclosely analogous to solutio indebiti is only to determine the validity of the lower
the other hand, contended that his claim arises from law and not from contract, express courts’ orders denying it. It is not an adjudication determining the liability of Chua’s
or implied. Thus, it need not be filed in the settlement of the estate of Garcia’s estate against Metrobank. The appropriate trial court should still determine whether
predecessor, as mandated by Section 5, Rule 87 of the Rules of Court (now Section 5, Metrobank has a lawful claim against Chua’s estate based on quasi-contract.1âwphi1
Rule 86).
Metrobank’s fourth-party complaint,
The Court held under these facts that a claim for necessary expenses spent as as a contingent claim, falls within the
previous possessor of the land is a kind of quasi-contract. Citing Leung Ben v. claims that should be filed under
O’Brien,40 it explained that the term "implied contracts," as used in our remedial law, Section 5, Rule 86 of the Rules of
originated from the common law where obligations derived from quasi-contracts and Court
from law are both considered as implied contracts. Thus, the term quasi-contract is
included in the concept "implied contracts" as used in the Rules of Court. Accordingly, A distinctive character of Metrobank’s fourth-party complaint is its contingent nature –
liabilities of the deceased arising from quasi-contracts should be filed as claims in the the claim depends on the possibility that Metrobank would be adjudged liable to AMC, a
settlement of his estate, as provided in Section 5, Rule 86 of the Rules of Court.41 future event that may or may not happen. This characteristic unmistakably marks the
complaint as a contingent one that must be included in the claims falling under the
Metrobank’s fourth-party complaint is terms of Section 5, Rule 86 of the Rules of Court:
based on quasi-contract
Sec. 5. Claims which must be filed under the notice. If not filed, barred; exceptions. – All
Both the RTC and the CA described Metrobank’s claim against Chua’s estate as one claims for money against the decedent, arising from contract, express or implied,
based on quasi-contract. A quasi-contract involves a juridical relation that the law whether the same be due, not due, or contingent, all claims for funeral expenses and
creates on the basis of certain voluntary, unilateral and lawful acts of a person, to avoid
expenses for the last sickness of the decedent, and judgment for money against the
decedent, must be filed within the time limited in the notice. [italics ours]

Specific provisions of Section 5, Rule

86 of the Rules of Court prevail over
general provisions of Section 11, Rule
6 of the Rules of Court

Metrobank argues that Section 11, Rule 6 of the Rules of Court should apply because it
impleaded Chua’s estate for reimbursement in the same transaction upon which it has
been sued by AMC. On this point, the Court supports the conclusion of the CA, to wit:

Notably, a comparison of the respective provisions of Section 11, Rule 6 and Section 5,
Rule 86 of the Rules of Court readily shows that Section 11, Rule 6 applies to ordinary
civil actions while Section 5, Rule 86 specifically applies to money claims against the
estate. The specific provisions of Section 5, Rule 86 x x x must therefore prevail over
the general provisions of Section 11, Rule 6.48

We read with approval the CA’s use of the statutory construction principle of lex
specialis derogat generali, leading to the conclusion that the specific provisions of
Section 5, Rule 86 of the Rules of Court should prevail over the general provisions of
Section 11, Rule 6 of the Rules of Court; the settlement of the estate of deceased
persons (where claims against the deceased should be filed) is primarily governed by
the rules on special proceedings, while the rules provided for ordinary claims, including
Section 11, Rule 6 ofthe Rules of Court, merely apply suppletorily.49

In sum, on all counts in the considerations material to the issues posed, the resolution
points to the affirmation of the assailed CA decision and resolution. Metrobank's claim
in its fourth-party complaint against Chua's estate is based on quasi-contract. It is also
a contingent claim that depends on another event. Both belong to the category of
claims against a deceased person that should be filed under Section 5, Rule 86 of the
Rules of Comi and, as such, should have been so filed in Special Proceedings No. 99-
0023.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, we hereby DENY the petition for lack of merit.
The decision of the Court of Appeals dated August 25, 2005, holding that the Regional
Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 80, did not commit grave abuse of discretion in
denying Metropolitan Bank & Trust Company's motion for leave to admit fourth-party
complaint Is

AFFIRMED. Costs against Metropolitan Bank & Trust Company.

SO ORDERED.