Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila THIRD DIVISION G.R. No. 176570
July 18, 2012
SPOUSES RAMON VILLUGA a! MERCE"ITA VILLUGA, Petitioners, vs. #ELL$ %AR"&ARE AN" CONSTRUCTION SUPPL$ INC., '()'(*(+(! y ERNESTO V. $U, E-(u+/( V/(P'(*/!(+ V/(P'(*/!(+ a! G(('al Maa(', Respondent.
FACTS OF THE CASE:
Herein respondent filed ith the RT! a !o"plaint for a Su" of Mone# and Da"a$es a$ainst herein petitioner petitioners s alle$in$ alle$in$ that defendants defendants %herein %herein petitioner petitioners& s& "ade purchases purchases of various construction construction "aterials fro" plaintiff corporation %herein respondent& hich has not been paid up to the present ti"e, both principal and stipulated interests due thereon. thereon. Plaintiff "ade several de"ands for the sa"e defendants to pa# all their obli$ations due plaintiff herein, but defendants fail and refuse to co"pl# ith, despite de"ands "ade upon the", to the da"a$e and pre'udice of plai ntiff. In their (nser to !o"plaint, petitioners ad"itted havin$ "ade purchases fro" respondent, but alle$ed that the# do not re"e"ber the e)act a"ount thereof as no cop# of the docu"ents evidencin$ the purchases ere attached to the co"plai nt. Petitioners, nonetheless, clai"ed that the# have "ade pa#"ents to the respondent and the# are illin$ to pa# the balance of their indebtedness after deductin$ the pa#"ents "ade and after verification of their account. In a Manifestation , petitioners stated that in order to bu# peace, the# ere illin$ to pa# respondent but ithout interests and costs, and on install"ent basis. In its !ounter Manifestation, Respondent si$nified that it as a"enable to petitioners* offer to pa#. Hoever, respondent insisted that petitioners should also pa# interests, interests, as ell as liti$ation e)penses and attorne#*s fees, and all incidental e)penses. Subse+uentl#, Subse+uentl#, respondent filed a Motion for Partial ud$"ent on the Pleadin$s contendin$ that petitioners ere dee"ed to have ad"itted in their (nser that the# oed respondent hen the# clai"ed that the# "ade partial pa#"ents. -ased on this pre"ise, respondent pra#ed that it be aarded the re"ainin$ balance. Petitioners filed their O pposition to the said Motion. The RT! issued an Order deferrin$ Order deferrin$ resolution of respondent*s Motion for Partial ud$"ent on the $round that there is no clear and specific ad"ission on the part of petitioners as to the actual a"ount that the# oe respondent. Respondent filed an ("ended !o"plaint, ith leave of court, alle$in$ that petitioners purchased fro" it respondent/ various construction "aterials and supplies, the a$$re$ate value of hich is P012,342.546 P012,342.546 that onl# P04,444.44 had been paid leavin$ a balance of P052,342.54. P052,342.54. In their (nser to ("ended !o"plaint, petitioners reiterated their alle$ations in their (nser to !o"plaint.
Respondent filed a Re+uest for (d"ission as7in$ that petitioners ad"it the $enuineness of various docu"ents, such as state"ents of accounts, deliver# receipts, inv oices and de"and letter attached thereto as ell as the truth of the alle$ations set forth therein. Respondent basicall# as7ed petitioners to ad"it that the latter*s principal obli $ation is P012,342.54 and that onl# P04,444.44 as paid. Respondent filed a Manifestation and Motion before the RT! pra#in$ that since petitioners failed to ti"el# file their co""ent to the Re+uest for (d"ission, the# be considered to have ad"itted the $enuineness of the docu"ents described in and e)hibited ith the said Re+uest as ell as the truth of the "atters of fact set forth therein, in accordance ith the Rules of !ourt. Petitioners filed their !o""ents on the Re+uest for (d"ission statin$ their ob'ections to the ad"ission of the docu"ents attached to the Re+uest. Respondent filed its Second ("ended !o"plaint, a$ain ith leave of court. The a"end"ent "odified the period covered b# the co"plaint. Instead of October 8220 to anuar# 5, 8229, it as chan$ed to ul# 02, 8220 until (u$ust 84, 822:. The a"end"ent also confir"ed petitioners* partial pa#"ent in the su" of P884,948.34 but alle$ed that this pa#"ent as applied to other obli$ations hich petitioners oe respondent. Respondent reiterated its alle$ation that, despite petitioners* partial pa#"ent, the principal a"ount hich petitioners oe re"ains P052,342.54. Petitioners filed their (nser to the Second ("ended !o"plaint den#in$ the alle$ations therein and insistin$ that the# have "ade partial pa#"ents. Respondent filed a Motion to ;)pun$e ith Motion for Su""ar# ud$"ent clai"in$ that petitioners* !o""ents on respondent*s Re+uest for (d"ission is a "ere scrap of paper as it as si$ned b# petitioners* counsel and not b# petitioners the"selves and that it as filed be#ond the period alloed b# the Rules of !ourt. Respondent $oes on to assert that petitioners, in effect, ere dee"ed to have i"pliedl# ad"itted the "atters sub'ect of the said re+uest. Respondent also contended that it is alread# entitled to the issuance of a su""ar# 'ud$"ent in its favor as petitioners not onl# failed to tender a $enuine issue as to an# "aterial fact but also did not raise an# special defenses, hich could possibl# relate to an# factual issue. In their Opposition to Motion to ;)pun$e ith Motion for Su""ar# ud$"ent, petitioners ar$ued that respondent*s re+uest for ad"ission is fatall# defective, because it did not indicate or specif# a period ithin hich to anser6 that verification b# petitioners* counsel is sufficient co"pliance ith the Rules of !ourt6 that petitioners* re+uest for ad"ission should be dee"ed dis pensed ith and no lon$er ta7en into account as it onl# relates to the ("ended !o"plaint, hich as alread# abandoned hen the Second ("ended !o"plaint as filed6 and that su""ar# 'ud$"ent is i"proper and ithout le$al basis, as there e)ists a $enuine controvers# brou$ht about b# petitioners* specific denials and defenses. The RT! issued an Order, the plaintiff*s %herein respondent*s& Motion to ;)pun$e ith Motion f or Su""ar# ud$"ent is hereb#
Whether or not the Court of Appeals was correct in sustaining the summary judgment rendered by the RTC. ISSUE:
SUPREME COURT DECISION: Yes.
The !ourt finds that the !( as correct in sustainin$ the su""ar# 'ud$"ent rendered b# the RT!.
1âwphi1
Sections 8 and 9, Rule 95 of the Rules of !ourt provide as follos= Section 1. Summary judgment for claimant . > ( part# see7in$ to recover upon a clai", counterclai", or cross?clai" or to obtain a declarator# relief "a#, at an# ti"e after the pleadin$ in anser thereto has been served, "ove ith supportin$ affidavits, depositions or ad"issions for a su""ar# 'ud$"ent in his favor upon all or an# part thereof. Section 3. Motion and proceedings thereon. > The "otion shall be served at least ten 84/ da#s before the ti"e specified for the hearin$. The adverse part# "a# serve opposin$ affidavits, depositions, or ad"issions at least three 9/ da#s before the hearin$. (fter the hearin$, the 'ud$"ent sou$ht shall be rendered forthith if the pleadin$s, supportin$ affidavits, depositions, and ad"issions on file, sho that, e)cept as to the a"ount of da"a$es, there is no $enuine issue as to an# "aterial fact and that the "ovin$ part# is entitled to a 'ud$"ent as a "atter of la. Su33a'y 4u!3(+ is a procedural device resorted to in order to avoid lon$ dran out liti$ations and useless dela#s.Such 'ud$"ent is $enerall# based on the facts proven su""aril# b# affidavits, depositions, pleadin$s, or ad"issions of the parties. In this respect, the !ourt*s rulin$ in Noco" v. !a"erino, is instructive, to it= ) ) ) @hen the pleadin$s on file sho that there are no $enuine issues of fact to be tried, the Rules of !ourt allo a part# to obtain i""ediate relief b# a# of su""ar# 'ud$"ent, that is, hen the facts are not in dispute, the court is alloed to decide the case su""aril# b# appl#in$ the la to the "aterial facts. !onversel#, here the pleadin$s tender a $enuine issue, su""ar# 'ud$"ent is not proper. ( A$enuine issueA is such issue of fact hich re+uires the presentation of evidence as distin$uished fro" a sha", fictitious, contrived or false clai". Section 9 of %Rule 95 of the Rules of !ourt& provides to 0/ re+uisites for su""ar# 'ud$"ent to be proper= 8/there "ust be no $enuine issue as to an# "aterial fact, e)cept for the a"ount of da"a$es6 and
(2) 0/ the part# presentin$ the "otion for su""ar# 'ud$"ent "ust be entitled to a 'ud$"ent as a "atter of la. ( su""ar# 'ud$"ent is per"itted onl# if there is no $enuine issue as to an# "aterial fact and a "ovin$ part# is entitled to a 'ud$"ent as a "atter of la. ( su""ar# 'ud$"ent is proper if, hile the pleadin$s on their face appear to raise issues, the affidavits, depositions, and ad"issions presented b# the "ovin$ part# sho that such issues are not $enuine.
