Rule 34 – Judgment on the Pleadings

G.R. No. 181676. June 11, 2014

ASIAN CONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, vs. SANNAEDLE CO., LTD

Facts of the Case:

The complaint alleged that petitioner and respondent executed a Memorandum of Agreement wherein
respondent was engaged to supply and erect insulated panel systems at various pavilions at the Philippine
Centennial Exposition Theme Park, specifically for the Phase I Project. Petitioner made various payments but left a
balance. Respondent claims that it made several written demands for petitioner to pay the said balance, but the
latter continuously refused to heed its plea.
Procedural History:
Petitioner filed its Answer with Counterclaim. Respondent then moved for judgment on the pleadings on the
ground that the Answer admitted all material allegations of the Complaint and, therefore, failed to tender an issue.
RTC of Makati City rendered judgment in favor of respondent. Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration against
said decision but was denied. Thus, petitioner filed an appeal before the CA but was dismissed. Petitioner filed a
motion for reconsideration, but the CA denied.
Statement of the Issue:
WON judgment on the pleadings is proper.
Holding:
Yes. Petitioner contends that the judgment on the pleadings is not proper, because it raised special and affirmative
defenses in its Answer. It asserts that with this specific denial, a genuine issue of fact had been joined to the extent
that a judgment on the pleadings could not be made. For its part, respondent counters that petitioner’s Answer
admitted the material allegations of its complaint regarding the cause of action, which is collection of sum of
money. Respondent emphasizes that assuming petitioner’s defense of respondent’s lack of capacity to sue has a
leg to stand on, still, the same cannot prevent respondent from seeking the collection of petitioner’s unpaid
balance. Judgment on the pleadings is proper when an answer fails to tender an issue, or otherwise admits the
material allegations of the adverse party’s pleading. An answer fails to tender an issue if it does not comply with
the requirements of a specific denial as set out in Sections 8 and 10,Rule 8 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure,
resulting in the admission of the material allegations of the adverse party’s pleadings. Here, it is irrefutable that
petitioner acknowledged having entered into a Memorandum of Agreement with respondent and that it still has
an unpaid balance of US$615,620.33. We note that respondent’s complaint for a sum of money is based mainly on
the alleged failure of petitioner to pay the balance of US$615,620.33 under the Memorandum of Agreement.
Quoting petitioner’s Answer, it is obvious that it admitted the foregoing material allegations in paragraphs 3, 4 and
5 of the complaint. While petitioner allegedly raised affirmative defenses, i.e., defect in the certification of non-
forum shopping, no legal capacity to sue and fortuitous event, the same cannot still bar respondent from seeking
the collection of the unpaid balance. Other than these affirmative defenses, petitioner’s denial neither made a
specific denial that a Memorandum of Agreement was perfected nor did it contest the genuineness and due
execution of said agreement
Rule 35 – Summary Judgments

G.R. No. 201427. March 18, 2015

TEOFILO B. ADOLFO vs. FE T. ADOLFO

Facts of the case:

Petitioner Teofilo B. Adolfo filed with the RTC a Petition for judicial separation of property against his estranged
wife, respondent Fe Adolfo, nee Tudtud, docketed as Civil Case No. MAN-4821. Petitioner prayed that judgment be
rendered decreeing a separation of the conjugal property and the subdivision or sale thereof and ordering
respondent to pay petitioner. In her Answer respondent contended that she is the sole owner of the subject
property, the same being her paraphernal property and prayed that the petition be dismissed.
Procedural History:
During the pre-trial conference in Civil Case No. MAN-4821, petitioner submitted as part of his evidence and for
marking certified true copies of the Gingoyons’ Complaint in Civil Case No. MAN-2683, respondent’s Answer
thereto, and the trial court’s May 15, 2002 Decision in said case. Respondent failed to file her answer or response
to the request for admission. Petitioner filed a Motion for Judgment Based on the Pleadings, stating that since
respondent failed to answer his request for admission, the matters contained in the request are deemed admitted
pursuant to Rule 26, Section 2 of the 1997 Rules of Civil. Petitioner thus prayed that the trial court render
judgment in his favor based on the pleadings and was granted. Respondent instituted an appeal with the CA and
the CA reversed the trial court. CA held that the trial court cannot treat petitioner’s motion for judgment on the
pleadings as one for summary judgment. It stated that in a proper case for judgment on the pleadings, there are no
ostensible issues at all on account of the defending party’s failure to raise an issue in his answer, while in a proper
case for summary judgment, such issues exist, although they are sham, fictitious, or not genuine as shown by
affidavits, depositions or admissions. It added that respondent’s Answer appeared on its face to tender an issue; it
disputed petitioner’s claim that the subject property is their conjugal property
Statement of the Issue:
WON the Court of Appeals erred in deciding the case on a question of substance not in accord with law, Rule 26 of
the 1997 Rules, and applicable jurisprudence
Holding:
The Court denies the petition. In rendering summary judgment, the trial court relied on respondent’s failure to
reply to petitioner’s request for admission, her admission in Civil Case No. MAN-2683, as well as its May 15, 2002
Decision declaring that the subject property is a conjugal asset. It took judicial notice of the proceedings in said
case. While there is nothing irregular with this – as courts may "take judicial notice of a decision or the facts
prevailing in another case sitting in the same court if (1) the parties present them in evidence, absent any
opposition from the other party; or (2) the court, in its discretion, resolves to do so" – the trial court however
disregarded the fact that its decision was then the subject of a pending appeal in CA-G.R. CV No. 78971. It should
have known that until the appeal is resolved by the appellate court, it would be premature to render judgment on
petitioner’s motion for judgment on the pleadings; that it would be presumptuous to assume that its own decision
would be affirmed on appeal. One of the issues raised in the appeal is precisely whether the subject property is
conjugal, or a paraphernal asset of the respondent. Thus, instead of resolving petitioner’s motion for judgment on
the pleadings, the trial court should have denied it or held it in abeyance. It should have guided petitioner to this
end, instead of aiding in the hasty resolution of his case. On the part of petitioner, it must be said that he could not
have validly resorted to a motion for judgment on the pleadings or summary judgment. While it may appear that
under Rules 34 and 35 of the 1997 Rules, he may file a motion for judgment on the pleadings or summary
judgment as a result of the consequent admission by respondent that the subject property is conjugal, this is not
actually the case. Quite the contrary, by invoking the proceedings and decision in Civil Case No. MAN-2683,
petitioner is precluded from obtaining judgment while the appeal in said case is pending, because the result
thereof determines whether the subject property is indeed conjugal or paraphernal. He may not preempt the
appeal in CA-G.R. CV No. 78971.

G.R. No. 202597. February 08, 2017

SPOUSES SERGIO C. PASCUAL AND EMMA SERVILLION PASCUAL, vs. FIRST CONSOLIDATED RURAL BANK
(BOHOL), INC., ROBINSONS LAND CORPORATION AND ATTY. ANTONIO P. ESPINOSA, REGISTER OF DEEDS,
BUTUAN CITY

Facts of the Case:

The petitioners filed a petition for annulment of judgment in the CA in order to nullify and set aside the decision
rendered in Special Proceedings Case No. 4577 ordering the cancellation of their notice of lis pendens recorded in
TCT No. RT-42190 of the Register of Deeds of Butuan City. The CA scheduled the preliminary conference and
ordered the parties to file their respective pre-trial briefs. Instead of filing their pre-trial brief, the petitioners filed
a Motion for Summary Judgment and a Motion to Hold Pre-Trial in Abeyance. At the scheduled preliminary
conference, the petitioners and their counsel did not appear.
Procedural History:
CA promulgated the first assailed resolution dismissing the petition for annulment of judgment. Petitioners,
instead of complying with our order, filed the twin motions, averring that it behooves us to rule first on their
motions before pre-trial could be conducted, "especially with the incompatibility of a pending Motion for Summary
Judgment vis-a-vis the conduct of pre-trial conference." Petitioners filed their Motion for Reconsideration which
the CA denied for being filed out of time.Unrelenting, they presented a Respectful Motion for Reconsideration
which the CA also denied.
Statement of the Issue:
Whether or not the CA erred in denying the motion for reconsideration
Holding:
No. The filing of the motion for summary judgment may be done prior to the pre-trial. Section 1, Rule 35 of
the Rules of Court permits a party seeking to recover upon a claim, counterclaim, or cross-claim or seeking
declaratory relief to file the motion for a summary judgment upon all or any part thereof in his favor (and its
supporting affidavits, depositions or admissions) "at any time after the pleading in answer thereto has been
served;" while Section 2 of Rule 35 instructs that a party against whom a claim, counterclaim, or cross-claim is
asserted or a declaratory relief is sought may file the motion for summary judgment (and its supporting affidavits,
depositions or admissions) upon all or any part thereof "at any time." As such, the petitioners properly filed their
motion for summary judgment prior to the pre-trial (assuming that they thereby complied with the requirement of
supporting affidavits, depositions or admissions). To be clear, the rule only spells out that unless the motion for
such judgment has earlier been filed the pre-trial may be the occasion in which the court considers the propriety of
rendering judgment on the pleadings or summary judgment If no such motion was earlier filed, the pre-trial judge
may then indicate to the proper party to initiate the rendition of such judgment by filing the necessary motion.
Indeed, such motion is required by either Rule 34 (Judgment on the Pleadings) or Rule 35 (Summary Judgment) of
the Rules of Court. The pre-trial judge cannot motu proprio render the judgment on the pleadings or summary
judgment In the case of the motion for summary judgment, the adverse party is entitled to counter the motion.

G.R. No. 190236. June 15, 2015

DENNIS MORTEL, vs. MICHAEL BRUNDIGE

Facts of the Case:

Petitioner Dennis Mortel obtained a loan from respondent Michael Brundige. To secure the payment of the loan,
the petitioner executed in favor of the respondent a real estate mortgage. Upon maturity of the loan, the
petitioner failed to pay his debt despite receipt of the demand letter. Petitioner forced open the subject property
and removed all of the respondent's belongings. The parties subsequently brought their dispute to the Office of
the Lupong Tagapamayapa of Barangay Sta. Rita but they failed to reach an amicable settlement.
Procedural History:
Respondent filed against the petitioner a complaint for Judicial Foreclosure of Mortgage. During the pre-trial
conference, the petitioner admitted the existence of the real estate mortgage; the respondent's demand letter;
and the Certificate to File Action. He also admitted that his obligation with the respondent was not paid but
claimed that the latter abandoned the subject property in violation of their agreement. The respondent
subsequently filed a motion for summary judgment based on Section 1, Rule 35 of the 1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure, claiming that since the petitioner already admitted the execution of a real estate mortgage and his
default in the payment of his loan, there was no more genuine issue of fact which calls for the presentation of
evidence in a full blown trial. RTC granted the respondent's motion for summary judgment and rendered its
decision ordering the petitioner to pay the respondent the loan. The CA affirmed the RTC's findings. It found that,
based on the petitioner's admission of default in the payment of his obligation, no genuine issue of fact on the
issue of his liability existed, requiring a trial for the presentation of evidence.
Statement of the Issue:
WON the CA erred in affirming the RTC's summary judgment.
Holding:
No. Summary judgment is a procedure aimed at weeding out sham claims or defenses at an early stage of the
litigation. The proper inquiry in this regard would be whether the affirmative defenses offered by petitioners
constitute genuine issues of fact requiring a full-blown trial. In a summary judgment, the crucial question is: are the
issues raised by petitioners not genuine so as to justify a summary judgment? A "genuine issue" means an issue of
fact which calls for the presentation of evidence, as distinguished from an issue which is fictitious or contrived, an
issue that does not constitute a genuine issue for trial. The record of the case shows that the petitioner made the
following factual admissions: first, he obtained a loan from the respondent; second, the loan was secured by a real
estate mortgage; and third, he failed to settle his obligation upon demand. The petitioner also admitted the
existence of the real estate mortgage (Sanglang-Tira Agreement), the respondent's demand letter dated October
21, 2002, and the Certificate to File Action. Based on these clear admissions of fact as well as the respondent's
testimony and documentary evidence, we agree with the lower courts that the action for judicial foreclosure of
mortgage was ripe for summary judgment as there was no longer any genuine issue of fact that would require a
trial for the presentation of evidence. In an action for judicial foreclosure of mortgage, the factual issues to be
resolved are: whether or not the debtor-mortgagor was in default, and whether the mortgagee has the right to
foreclose the mortgage. It is a settled rule that when the debtor is in default in the payment of his obligation, the
mortgagee has the right to foreclose the mortgage and to have the property seized and sold with the view of
applying the proceeds to the payment of the obligation.

G.R. No. 209324. December 09, 2015

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY THE BUREAU OF CUSTOMS, vs. PILIPINAS SHELL PETROLEUM
CORPORATION

Facts of the Case:

Under a Deed of Assignment Filipino Way Industries (FWI) assigned Tax Credit Certificates (TCCs) to PSPC in the
total amount of P 10,088,912.00. On the belief that the TCCs were actually good and valid, the Bureau of Customs
(BOC) accepted and allowed PSPC to use the above TCCs to pay the customs duties and taxes due on its oil
importations. The One-Stop Shop Inter-Agency Tax Credit and Duty Drawback Center ("Center") informed BIR
Commissioner Beethoven L. Rualo that it has cancelled various Tax Debit Memos (TDMs) issued to PSPC and Petron
Corporation against their TCCs which were found to have been fraudulently issued and transferred. The Center
thus advised that it will be demanding from the said oil companies payment corresponding to the amount of the
TCCs as evidenced by the TDMs, and accordingly directed the BIR to collect the amount utilized on the TCCs,
including the related penalties, surcharges and interests. A similar letter was sent to Customs Commissioner Nelson
Tan regarding the cancellation of TDMs issued to PSPC based on the Center's finding that the TCCs utilized by PSPC
have been fraudulently issued and transferred.
Procedural History:
The Republic of the Philippines represented by the BOC filed the present collection suit in the RTC for the payment
of P10,088,912.00. PSPC filed with the CTA a petition for review questioning the factual and legal bases of BOC's
collection efforts. Subsequently, PSPC moved to dismiss the civil case on the ground that the RTC had no
jurisdiction and that the complaint for collection was prematurely filed. The RTC denied the motion to dismiss and
PSPC eventually filed its answer questioning the RTC's jurisdiction. When the RTC issued a notice of pre-trial, PSPC
moved for reconsideration of the order denying its motion to dismiss but was denied. PSPC elevated the matter to
the CA via a petition for certiorari. The CA denied PSPC's petition. PSPC sought recourse from this Court in a
petition for review but was denied. The CTA denied BOC's motion to dismiss. The BOC appealed to the CA, which
reversed the questioned CTA resolutions. PSPC again sought recourse from this Court via a petition for review on
certiorari. By Decision, we denied the petition and held that the present case does not involve a tax protest case.
With the resumption of proceedings in the RTC, the BOC filed an Amended Complaint, to which PSPC filed a
Second Amended Answer. Pre-trial was terminated and the RTC summarized the issues. PSPC filed a motion for
summary judgment arguing that there is no basis for the Republic's claims considering that the subject TCCs were
already fully utilized for the payment of PSPC's customs duties and taxes, and that EXCOM Resolution No. 03-05-
99, the basis of the cancellation of the TCCs, was declared void and invalid. In its Comment/Opposition, BOC
argued that rendition of summary judgment is inappropriate in this case in view of disputed facts that necessitate a
full-blown trial where both parties can present evidence on their respective claims. RTC denied the motion for
summary judgment in view of factual disputes which can only be resolved by trial on the merits. Specifically, it
stated that presentation of evidence is necessary to determine if PSPC is a mere transferee in good faith and for
value of the subject TCCs and that there was a valid transfer/assignment between PSPC and FWI. However, on
motion for reconsideration by PSPC, the RTC reversed its earlier ruling and granted the motion for summary
judgment
Statement of the Issue:
WON summary judgment is proper
Holding:
No. Even if on their face the pleadings appear to raise issues, when the affidavits, depositions and admissions show
that such issues are not genuine, then summary judgment as prescribed by the Rules must ensue as a matter of
law. The determinative factor, therefore, in a motion for summary judgment, is the presence or absence of a
genuine issue as to any material fact. For a full-blown trial to be dispensed with, the party who moves for summary
judgment has the burden of demonstrating clearly the absence of genuine issues of fact, or that the issue posed is
patently insubstantial as to constitute a genuine issue. Genuine issue means an issue of fact which calls for the
presentation of evidence as distinguished from an issue which is fictitious or contrived. Petitioner's complaint is
premised mainly on the alleged fraudulent issuance and transfer of the subject TCCs. As stated in the pre-trial
order, petitioner submitted for trial the issue of whether or not PSPC is a transferee in good faith.

Rule 36 - — Judgments Final Orders and Entry

G.R. No. 197582. 29 June 2015
Sumbilla vs. Matrix Finance Corp.

Facts of the Case:

Petitioner obtained a cash loan from. As partial payment for her loan, petitioner issued Philippine Business Bank
Checks. The six checks were presented by respondent to the drawee bank for payment. However, all the checks
were dishonored on the ground that they were drawn against a closed account.
Procedural History:
Petitioner's refusal to heed the demand letter of respondent for the payment of the face value of the dishonored
checks culminated in her indictment for six counts of violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (BP 22). MeTC found
petitioner criminally and civilly liable for the issuance of the six rubber checks. Instead of filing a Notice of Appeal,
petitioner opted to file a Motion for Reconsideration however such was denied being a pleading barred under the
Revised Rules on Summary Procedure and does not suspend the running of the period to perfect an appeal. With
the denial of her Motion for Reconsideration, petitioner filed a petition for certiorari 6 under Rule 65 of the Rules.
The RTC dismissed petition of certiorari and its motion for reconsideration, ruling that the MeTC did not act with
grave abuse of discretion in denying the Notice of Appeal filedl by petitioner. Petitioner elevated the case to the
CA, however, ruled that an ordinary appeal under Section 2 (a), Rule 41 of the Rules of Court is the correct remedy
under the circumstances . Petitioner filed her Petition for Review on Certiorari within the period of extension
granted in the Court’s Resolution.
Statement of the Issue:
WON penalty imposed in the MeTC Decision, which is already final and executory, may still be modified.
Holding:
The petition is meritorious. Petitioner does not dispute the finality of the decision rendered by the MeTC, finding
her guilty beyond reasonable doubt of six counts of violation of BP 22. Unfortunately, in the present case, the
MeTC Decision is already final and executory after petitioner failed to timely file a Notice of Appeal. Under the
doctrine of finality and immutability of judgments, a decision that has acquired finality becomes immutable and
unalterable and may no longer be modified in any respect, even if the modification is meant to correct erroneous
conclusions of fact or law, and whether it will be made by the court that rendered it or by the highest court of the
land. The Court has the power and prerogative to suspend its own rules and to exempt a case from their operation
if and when justice requires it. After all, procedural rules were conceived to aid the attainment of justice. If a
stringent application of the rules would hinder rather than serve the demands of substantial justice, the former
must yield to the latter, as specifically mandated under Section 2, Rule 1 of the Rules of Court. Here, the penalty
imposed is obviously out of range of that prescribed in Section 1 of BP 22. Substantial justice dictates that the
penalty of meted on the petitioner be accordingly corrected within the maximum limits prescribed under Section 1
of BP 22.

G.R. No. 184295. 30 July 2014.

NTC vs. Aplhaomega Integrated Corp.

Facts of the Case:

Alphaomega Integrated Corp, a duly licensed transmission line contractor, participated in the public biddings
conducted by TRANSCO and was awarded six (6) government construction projects and encountered difficulties
and incurred losses allegedly due to TRANSCO's breach of their contracts, prompting it to surrender the projects to
TRANSCO under protest.
Procedural History:
AIC submitted a request for arbitration before the CIAC and, thereafter, filed an Amended Complaint against
TRANSCO alleging that the latter breached the contracts by its failure to: (a) furnish the required Detailed
Engineering; (b) arrange a well-established right-of-way to the project areas; (c) secure the necessary permits and
clearances from the concerned local government units (LGUs); (d) ensure a continuous supply of construction
materials; and (e) carry out AIC's requests for power shut down. CIAC Arbitral Tribunal rendered its Final Award
and even if AIC itself made the requests for contract time extensions, this did not bar its claim for damages as a
result of project delays since a contrary ruling would allow TRANSCO to profit from its own negligence and leave
AIC to suffer serious material prejudice as a direct consequence of that negligence leaving it without any remedy at
law. CA affirmed the Arbitral Tribunal's factual findings that TRANSCO failed to exercise due diligence in resolving
the problems regarding the right-of-way and the lack of materials before undertaking the bidding process and
entering into the contracts with AIC.
Statement of the Issue:
WON the CA erred in affirming the CIAC Arbitral Tribunal's findings that AIC was entitled to its claims for damages
as a result of project delays.
Holding:
TRANSCO seeks through this is evidently a factual question which cannot be the proper subject of the present
petition. Section 1, Rule 45 of the Rules of Court provides that a petition for review on certiorari under the said
rule, as in this case, "shall raise only questions of law which must be distinctly set forth.”. It is well-settled that
findings of fact of quasi-judicial bodies, which have acquired expertise because their jurisdiction is confined to
specific matters, are generally accorded not only respect, but also finality, especially when affirmed by the CA. The
CIAC possesses that required expertise in the field of construction arbitration and the factual findings of its
construction arbitrators are final and conclusive, not reviewable by this Court on appeal. Indeed, the rule is well
entrenched: Specialis derogat generali. When two rules apply to a particular case, that which was specially
designed for the said case must prevail over the other. Furthermore, it must be emphasized that the petition for
review before the CA was filed by TRANSCO. The issue was touched upon by the CA only after AIC raised the same
through its Comment to TRANSCO's petition for review. The CA should not have modified the amount of the award
to favor AIC because it is well-settled that no relief can be granted a party who does not appeal and that a party
who did not appeal the decision may not obtain any affirmative relief from the appellate court other than what he
had obtained from the lower court, if any, whose decision is brought up on appeal. The disposition, as stated in the
fallo of the CIAC Arbitral Tribunal's Final Awards.

CASE MATRIX
Rule 34 – Judgment on the Pleadings
CASE FACTS ISSUE HOLDING ANALYSIS
G.R. No. 181676. Petitioner and WON judgment on Yes. Judgment on The defenses
ASIAN respondent executed the pleadings is the pleadings is raised by
CONSTRUCTION AND a Memorandum of proper. proper when an [petitioner] cannot
DEVELOPMENT Agreement Petitioner answer fails to prevent the
CORPORATION, vs. made various tender an issue, or [respondent] from
SANNAEDLE CO., LTD payments but left a otherwise admits seeking the
 balance. Respondent the material collection of the
claims that it made allegations of the amount of
several written adverse party’s US$615,620.33.
demands for pleading. An answer The express terms
petitioner to pay the fails to tender an of the
said balance, but the issue if it does not Memorandum of
latter continuously comply with the Agreement, the
refused to heed its requirements of a genuineness and
plea. Petitioner filed specific denial as set due execution of
its Answer with out in Sections which are not
Counterclaim. 8 and 10,Rule 8 of denied by the
Respondent then the 1997 Rules of [petitioner]. It
moved for judgment Civil Procedure, cannot assert the
on the pleadings on resulting in the said defenses in
the ground that the admission of the order to resist the
Answer admitted all material allegations [respondent's]
material allegations of of the adverse claim for the
the Complaint and, party’s pleadings. aforesaid sum of
therefore, failed to Here, it is irrefutable money, especially
tender an issue. that petitioner where it has been
RTC rendered acknowledged sufficiently shown
judgment in favor of having entered into by the allegations
respondent. a Memorandum of of the Complaint
Petitioner filed a Agreement with and the Answer
motion for respondent and that that the
reconsideration but it still has an unpaid [petitioner] is
was denied. Thus, balance of clearly liable for
petitioner filed an US$615,620.33. We the payment
appeal before the CA note that thereof.
but was dismissed. respondent’s
Petitioner filed a complaint for a sum
motion for of money is based
reconsideration, but mainly on the
the CA denied. alleged failure of
petitioner to pay the
balance of
US$615,620.33
under the
Memorandum of
Agreement. Quoting
petitioner’s Answer,
it is obvious that it
admitted the
foregoing material
allegations in
paragraphs 3, 4 and
5 of the complaint.
Rule 35 – Summary Judgments
G.R. No. 201427 Petitioner filed a WON the Court of The Court denies It should have
TEOFILO B. ADOLFO Petition for judicial Appeals erred in the petition. In known that until
vs. FE T. ADOLFO separation of deciding the case on rendering summary the appeal is
property against a question of judgment, the trial resolved by the
 respondent docketed substance not in court relied on appellate court, it
as Civil Case No. accord with law, Rule respondent’s failure would be
MAN-4821. Petitioner 26 of the 1997 Rules, to reply to premature to
submitted as part of and applicable petitioner’s request render judgment
his evidence and for jurisprudence for admission, her on petitioner’s
marking certified true admission in Civil motion for
copies of the Case No. MAN- judgment on the
Gingoyons’ Complaint 2683, as well as its pleadings; that it
in Civil Case No. MAN- May 15, 2002 would be
2683, respondent’s Decision declaring presumptuous to
Answer thereto, and that the subject assume that its
the trial court’s May property is a own decision
15, 2002 Decision in conjugal asset. It would be affirmed
said case. took judicial notice on appeal.
Respondent failed to of the proceedings
file her answer or in said case. While
response to the there is nothing
request for admission. irregular with this –
Petitioner filed a as courts may "take
Motion for Judgment judicial notice of a
Based on the decision or the facts
Pleadings. prevailing in another
case sitting in the
same court if (1) the
parties present
them in evidence,
absent any
opposition from the
other party; or (2)
the court, in its
discretion, resolves
to do so" – the trial
court however
disregarded the fact
that its decision was
then the subject of a
pending appeal in
CA-G.R. CV No.
78971.
G.R. No. 202597. The petitioners filed a Whether or not the No. The filing of the Indeed, such
February 08, 2017 petition for CA erred in denying motion for summary motion is required
SPOUSES SERGIO C. annulment of the motion for judgment may be by either Rule
PASCUAL AND EMMA judgment in the CA. reconsideration done prior to the 34 (Judgment on
SERVILLION PASCUAL, The CA scheduled the pre-trial. Section 1, the Pleadings) or
vs. FIRST preliminary Rule 35 of the Rules Rule 35 (Summary
CONSOLIDATED conference and of Court permits a Judgment) of
RURAL BANK ordered the parties to party seeking to the Rules of Court.
(BOHOL), INC., file their respective recover upon a The pre-trial judge
ROBINSONS LAND pre-trial briefs. claim, counterclaim, cannot motu
CORPORATION AND Instead of filing their or cross-claim or proprio render the
ATTY. ANTONIO P. pre-trial brief, the seeking declaratory judgment on the
ESPINOSA, REGISTER petitioners filed relief to file the pleadings or
OF DEEDS, BUTUAN a Motion for motion for a summary judgment
CITY Summary summary judgment In the case of the
Judgment and a upon all or any part motion for
Motion to Hold Pre- thereof in his favor summary
Trial in Abeyance. At (and its supporting judgment, the
the scheduled affidavits, adverse party is
preliminary depositions or entitled to counter
conference, the admissions) "at any the motion.
petitioners and their time after the
counsel did not pleading in answer
appear. CA thereto has been
promulgated the first served;" while
assailed resolution Section 2 of Rule 35
dismissing the instructs that a
petition for party against whom
annulment of a claim,
judgment. Petitioners, counterclaim, or
instead of complying cross-claim is
with our order, filed asserted or a
the twin motions, declaratory relief is
averring that it sought may file the
behooves us to rule motion for summary
first on their motions judgment (and its
before pre-trial could supporting
be conducted. affidavits,
Petitioners twice filed depositions or
their Motion for admissions) upon all
Reconsideration or any part thereof
which the CA denied. "at any time." As
such, the petitioners
properly filed their
motion for summary
judgment prior to
the pre-trial
(assuming that they
thereby complied
with the
requirement of
supporting
affidavits,
depositions or
admissions). To be
clear, the rule only
spells out that
unless the motion
for such judgment
has earlier been
filed the pre-
trial may be the
occasion in which
the court considers
the propriety of
rendering judgment
 on the pleadings or
summary judgment
If no such motion
was earlier filed, the
pre-trial judge may
then indicate to the
proper party to
initiate the rendition
of such judgment by
filing the necessary
motion.
G.R. No. 190236. Respondent filed WON the CA erred in No. The record of Summary judgment
DENNIS against the petitioner affirming the RTC's the case shows that is a procedure
MORTEL, vs. MICHAEL a complaint for summary judgment. the petitioner made aimed at weeding
BRUNDIGE Judicial Foreclosure of the following factual out sham claims or
Mortgage. During the admissions: first, he defenses at an
pre-trial conference, obtained a loan early stage of the
the petitioner from the litigation. The
admitted the respondent; second, proper inquiry in
existence of the real the loan was this regard would
estate mortgage; the secured by a real be whether the
respondent's demand estate mortgage; affirmative
letter; and the and third, he failed defenses offered
Certificate to File to settle his by petitioners
Action. He also obligation upon constitute genuine
admitted that his demand. The issues of fact
obligation with the petitioner also requiring a full-
respondent was not admitted the blown trial. In a
paid but claimed that existence of the real summary
the latter abandoned estate mortgage, judgment, the
the subject property the respondent's crucial question is:
in violation of their demand letter, and are the issues
agreement. The the Certificate to raised by
respondent File Action. Based petitioners not
subsequently filed a on these clear genuine so as to
motion for summary admissions of fact as justify a summary
judgment. RTC well as the judgment? A
granted the respondent's "genuine issue"
respondent's motion testimony and means an issue of
for summary documentary fact which calls for
judgment and evidence, we agree the presentation of
rendered its decision with the lower evidence, as
ordering the courts that the distinguished from
petitioner to pay the action for judicial an issue which is
respondent the loan. foreclosure of fictitious or
The CA affirmed the mortgage was ripe contrived, an issue
RTC's findings. for summary that does not
judgment as there constitute a
was no longer any genuine issue for
genuine issue of fact trial.
that would require a
trial for the
 presentation of
evidence.
G.R. No. 209324. The Republic of the WON summary No. Even if on their Trial courts have
REPUBLIC OF THE Philippines judgment is proper face the pleadings limited authority to
PHILIPPINES, represented by the appear to raise render summary
REPRESENTED BY THE BOC filed the present issues, when the judgments and
BUREAU OF collection suit. PSPC affidavits, may do so only
CUSTOMS, vs. moved to dismiss the depositions and when there is
PILIPINAS SHELL civil case on the admissions show clearly no genuine
PETROLEUM ground that the RTC that such issues are issue as to any
CORPORATION had no jurisdiction not genuine, then material fact.
and that the summary judgment When the facts as
complaint for as prescribed by the pleaded by the
collection was Rules must ensue as parties are
prematurely filed. The a matter of law. The disputed or
RTC denied the determinative contested,
motion to dismiss. factor, therefore, in proceedings for
PSPC moved for a motion for summary judgment
reconsideration of the summary judgment, cannot take the
order denying its is the presence or place of trial. As
motion to dismiss but absence of a certain facts
was denied. PSPC genuine issue as to pleaded are
elevated the matter any material fact. contested by the
to the CA via a For a full-blown trial parties in this case,
petition for certiorari. to be dispensed rendition of
The CA denied PSPC's with, the party who summary judgment
petition. PSPC sought moves for summary is not proper.
recourse from this judgment has the
Court in a petition for burden of
review but was demonstrating
denied. The CTA clearly the absence
denied BOC's motion of genuine issues of
to dismiss. The BOC fact, or that the
appealed to the CA, issue posed is
which reversed the patently
questioned CTA insubstantial as to
resolutions. PSPC constitute a genuine
again sought recourse issue. Genuine issue
from this Court via a means an issue of
petition for review on fact which calls for
certiorari. By Decision, the presentation of
we denied the evidence as
petition and held that distinguished from
the present case does an issue which is
not involve a tax fictitious or
protest case. contrived.
With the resumption Petitioner's
of proceedings in the complaint is
RTC, the BOC filed an premised mainly on
Amended Complaint, the alleged
to which PSPC filed a fraudulent issuance
Second Amended and transfer of the
 Answer. Pre-trial was subject TCCs. As
terminated and the stated in the pre-
RTC summarized the trial order,
issues. PSPC filed a petitioner submitted
motion for summary for trial the issue of
judgment arguing that whether or not PSPC
there is no basis for is a transferee in
the Republic's claims good faith.
considering that the
subject TCCs were
already fully utilized
for the payment of
PSPC's customs duties
and taxes, and that
EXCOM Resolution
No. 03-05-99, the
basis of the
cancellation of the
TCCs, was declared
void and invalid. In its
Comment/Opposition,
BOC argued that
rendition of summary
judgment is
inappropriate in this
case in view of
disputed facts that
necessitate a full-
blown trial where
both parties can
present evidence on
their respective
claims. RTC denied
the motion for
summary judgment in
view of factual
disputes which can
only be resolved by
trial on the merits. On
motion for
reconsideration RTC
granted the motion
for summary
judgment

Rule 36 - Judgments, Final Orders and Entry Thereof

G.R. No. 197582. MeTC found WON the penalty The Court has the Under the doctrine
Sumbilla vs. Matrix petitioner criminally imposed in the MeTC power and of finality and
Finance Corp., and civilly liable for decision, which is prerogative to immutability of
the issuance of six already final and suspend its own judgments, a
rubber checks. executory, may still rules and to exempt decision that has
Petitioner initially be modified. a case from their acquired finality
 filed a motion for operation if and becomes
reconsideration which when justice immutable and
was denied. requires it. unalterable and
Subsequently, the Substantial justice may no longer be
notice of appeal filed dictates that the modified in any
by petitioner was also penalty of fine respect, even if the
denied by having meted on the modification is
been filed beyond the petitioner be meant to correct
15-day reglementary accordingly erroneous
period. corrected within the conclusions of fact
maximum limits or law, and
prescribed under whether it will be
Section 1 of BP 22. made by the court
that rendered it or
by the highest
court of the land.
Nonetheless, the
Court has the
power and
prerogative to
suspend its own
rules and to
exempt a case from
their operation if
and when justice
requires it. 
G.R. No. 184295 . NTC AIC submitted a WON the CA Yes. Having failed to Section 17.1 of the
vs. Aplhaomega request for arbitration correctly affirmed the move for the CIAC Rules
Integrated Corp., before the CIAC and CIAC Arbitral correction of the mandates the filing
thereafter, filed an Tribunal’s factual Final Award and, of a motion within
Amended Complaint determinations? thereafter, having 15 days from
against TRANSCO and opted to file instead receipt. Failure to
prayed for judgment a motion for file the said motion
declaring all six execution of the would render the
contracts be arbitral tribunal's award final and
rescinded and unopposed and executory
ordering TRANSCO to uncorrected Final
pay, in addition to Award, AIC cannot
what had already now question
been paid, under the against the
contracts, moral correctness of the
damages, exemplary CIAC's disposition.
damages, and
attorney’s fees. CIAC
granted. CA upheld
the award which led
TRANSCO to move for
reconsideration but
was denied by the
respective court.