Koh vs. IAC 1.

Kohs father sent her $500 through the Metropolitan Bank & trust Company which is the remitting ank of respon!ent "irst #nterstate Bank of California. But !ue to a computer mistake$ respon!ent Banks %os &ngeles office erroneously o'erstate! the amount of $(500 instea! of $500. ). #t was !eposite! to her account an! she su se*uently with!rew it. +. Koh a!mitte! that what happene! was true an! that shes offering the ank to pay it in installments of $100 ut the offer was re,ecte!. -. .he /fficer in Charge of 0.C Makati sent the following 12/.#C3 /" C&43 4.&.546 to the parties through their respecti'e lawyers. 4tate! on it$ 1#f a party elie'es that those mo!es of !isco'ery are not applica le$ necessary or feasi le with respect to him$ he shall file a manifestation to that effect.6 5. 2o manifestation was file! y the parties lawyers. &n! for the non7compliance with /r!er the case was !ismisse!. 8. .he respon!ent Bank refille! its case ut Koh in'oke! res a!,u!icate an! file! for a motion to !imiss. #t was !enie! y the ,u!ge. 9. 3le'ate! to the #&C$ it was also !enie!. #4453: ;hether or not the earlier !ecision of !ismissing the case was null an! 'oi!. <3%=: .he !ecision of the appellate court is affirme!. 1. .he omissions of the counsel are not fatal to its cause in 'iew of the !efecti'e proce!ure which resulte! in its !ismissal. ). .he rules on !isco'ery are inten!e! to ena le a party to o tain knowle!ge of material facts within the knowle!ge of the a!'erse party or thir! parties through !epositions> to o tain knowle!ge of material facts or a!missions from the a!'erse party through written interrogatories> to o tain a!missions from the a!'erse party regar!ing the genuineness of rele'ant !ocuments or rele'ant matters of fact through re*uests for a!mission> to inspect rele'ant !ocuments or o ,ects an! lan!s or other property in the possession or control of the a!'erse party> an! to !etermine the physical or mental con!ition of a party when such is contro'ersy. +. .rial ,u!ges shoul! therefore$ encourage the proper utili?ation of rules in !isco'ery. <owe'er$ recourse to !isco'ery of proce!ures is not man!atory. #f the parties !o not choose to resort to such proce!ures$ the pre7trial conference shoul! e set.