FACTS:

Respondent Rafael Ma. Guerrero filed a complaint for damages against petitioner Manufacturers Hanover Trust Co. and/or Chemical Bank. The complaint was filed on May 17, 1994, and Guerrero sought payment of damages for various claims including illegally withheld taxes charged against interests on his checking account with the Bank, a returned check due to signature verification problems, and unauthorized conversion of his account. The Bank filed its Answer alleging that Guerrero's account is governed by New York law, which does not permit most of Guerrero's claims. The Bank then filed a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment seeking the dismissal of Guerrero's claims for consequential, nominal, temperate, moral, and exemplary damages, as well as attorney's fees, based on the New York law. The RTC denied the Bank's motion and its motion for reconsideration, leading the Bank to file a petition with the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition and denied the Bank's motion for reconsideration. The Bank now files a petition for review with the Supreme Court, contending that the Court of Appeals committed reversible error in ruling that the Bank's proof of facts through an affidavit may not be given in a Motion for Summary Judgment and that the affidavit proving foreign law is hearsay.

ISSUES:

1. Whether there are genuine issues of fact that necessitate a formal trial.

2. Whether the motion for partial summary judgment is supported by sufficient evidence.

3. Whether the Walden affidavit can be considered as proof of New York law on damages.

4. Whether Guerrero can claim for nominal damages under New York law.

5. Whether temperate damages are recognized under New York law.

6. Whether consequential damages are available for wrongful dishonor under New York law.

7. Whether emotional distress and damage to reputation are recoverable for a breach of contract under New York law.

8. Whether the performance of stock after a breach of a contract to purchase stock should be considered for damages under New York law.

9. Whether consequential damages can only be recovered if they were within the contemplation of the parties at the time of contracting.

10. Whether attorneys' fees can be awarded in this type of case under New York law.

11. Whether exemplary or punitive damages are allowed for a breach of contract under New York law.

12. Whether the Walden affidavit proves the current state of New York law and jurisprudence.

13. Whether Guerrero's failure to submit an opposing affidavit should result in an admission of the Bank's averments.

14. Whether the court correctly denied the Bank's motion for partial summary judgment.

RULING:

1. Yes, there are genuine issues of fact that necessitate a formal trial.

2. No, the motion for partial summary judgment is not supported by sufficient evidence.

3. The Walden affidavit cannot be considered as proof of New York law on damages because it is ex parte, self-serving, and does not state the specific New York law on damages.

4. Guerrero cannot claim for nominal damages under New York law because nominal damages are only awarded when the plaintiff is unable to prove actual damages.

5. Temperate damages are not recognized under New York law.

6. Consequential damages for a justifiable refusal to pay are not available under New York law, unless there is bad faith.

7. Emotional distress and damage to reputation are not recoverable for a breach of contract under New York law.

8. The performance of stock after a breach of a contract to purchase stock is not considered for damages under New York law.

9. Consequential damages can only be recovered if they were within the contemplation of the parties at the time of contracting under New York law.

10. Attorneys' fees cannot be awarded in this type of case under New York law, unless provided by contract or statute.

11. Exemplary or punitive damages are not allowed for a breach of contract under New York law, unless the wrong committed amounts to a fraud aimed at the public generally and involves high moral culpability.

12. The Walden affidavit did not comply with Section 24 of Rule 132 on proof of official records or decisions of foreign courts, therefore it did not prove the current state of New York law and jurisprudence.

13. Guerrero's failure to submit an opposing affidavit does not result in an admission of the Bank's averments. The Bank still had the burden of proving New York law and jurisprudence, and Guerrero's opposition to the motion for partial summary judgment, even without an opposing affidavit, was sufficient.

14. The courts correctly denied the Bank's motion for partial summary judgment as there were substantial triable issues between the parties. The need to determine if the Bank is guilty of any wrongdoing and liable for damages under applicable laws requires a regular trial.

PRINCIPLES:

• A genuine issue is an issue of fact that calls for the presentation of evidence, as opposed to a fictitious or contrived issue that does not require a trial.

• Questions of fact and material allegations in dispute prevent the grant of a summary judgment.

• Foreign laws must be alleged and proven, and are not a matter of judicial notice.

• The record of public documents of a sovereign authority or tribunal may be proved by an official publication or a copy attested by the officer having custody of the record. However, other competent evidence may be admitted to prove the existence of a foreign law.

• Mere authentication of the foreign law by the corresponding consulate may be competent proof of that law.

• Nominal damages are awarded when the plaintiff is unable to prove actual damages.

• Temperate damages are not recognized under New York law.

• Consequential damages for a justifiable refusal to pay are not available under New York law, unless there is bad faith.

• Emotional distress and damage to reputation are not recoverable for a breach of contract under New York law.

• The performance of stock after a breach of a contract to purchase stock is not considered for damages under New York law.

• Consequential damages can only be recovered if they were within the contemplation of the parties at the time of contracting under New York law.

• Attorneys' fees can only be awarded if provided by contract or statute under New York law.

• Exemplary or punitive damages are not allowed for a breach of contract under New York law, unless it amounts to a fraud aimed at the public generally and involves high moral culpability.

• The failure to comply with the requirements on proving foreign law and decisions of foreign courts renders the evidence of such law and jurisprudence insufficient.

• The term "may" in remedial law is permissive and not mandatory, thus the submission of an opposing affidavit is not obligatory.

• A party need not submit an opposing affidavit if the matters in the affidavit are already controverted in the complaint.

• A motion for partial summary judgment should be denied if there are substantial triable issues between the parties. The purpose of summary judgments is to avoid the expense and loss of time involved in a trial.