Judgment on the Pleadings

Vergara vs. Hon. Suelto

G.R. No. 74766 December 21, 1987

Facts:
Vergara alleges that he is the owner of a commercial building and that the lessees
thereof defaulted in the payment of rentals. Thus he instituted an action for unlawful
detainer. Defendant-lessees answered denying having paid rents to Vergara. They also
set an affirmative defense by claiming title over the land. Subsequently, Vergara filed a
motion for summary judgment. The trial court denied this motion on the ground that the
answer of defendants specifically denied the material allegations in the complaint and
that they even set up an affirmative defense. Thus, such answer did not merely consist
of a general denial but definitely tendered a genuine issue which cannot be resolved by
resort to a summary judgment.
Issue: WON the summary judgment is proper.
Held: YES.
The defendants' answer appears on its face to tender issues. It purports to deal with
each of the material allegations of the complaint, and either specifically denies, or
professes lack of knowledge or information to form a belief as to them. It also sets up
affirmative defenses. But the issues thus tendered are sham, not genuine.
----------------------------------------

Summary judgment must not be confused with judgment on the pleadings. The essential question in determining whether
a summary judgment is proper is not whether the answer does controvert the material allegations of the complaint but
whether that controversion is bona fides and not whether the answer does tender valid issues as by setting forth specific
denials and/or affirmative defenses but whether the issues thus tendered are genuine, or fictitious, sham, characterized
by bad faith.

Where an answer "fails to tender an issue, or otherwise admits the material allegation of the adverse party's pleading, the
court may, on motion of that party, direct judgment on such pleading." The answer would fail to tender an issue, of course,
if it does not comply with the requirements for a specific denial and it would admit the material allegations of the adverse
party's pleadings not only where it expressly confesses the truthfulness thereof but also if it omits to deal with them at all.
Thus, if an answer does in fact specifically deny the material averments of the complaint and/or asserts affirmative
defenses, a judgment on the pleadings would naturally not be proper.
But even if the answer does tender issues and therefore a judgment on the pleadings is not proper-a summary
judgment may still be rendered on the plaintiff's motion if he can show to the Court's satisfaction that "except as to the

Judgment on the Pleadings

amount of damages, there is no genuine issue as to any material fact," that is to say, the issues thus tendered are not
genuine, are in other words sham, fictitious, contrived, set up in bad faith, patently unsubstantial.
The determination may be made by the Court on the basis of the pleadings, and the depositions, admissions and
affidavits that the movant may submit, as well as those which the defendant may present in his turn.

Archipelago Builders/Pe vs. IAC & Univ Steel Smelting G.R. No. 75282 February 19,
1991

Facts:
Univ Steel Smelting filed an action against Pe in order to be ordered to pay the price of
steel bars which it allegedly delivered to him. Pe admitted having made purchases of
steel bars from Univ Steel Smelting, but however, alleges that the steel bars delivered
failed to comply with the standards set by law. He also set up an affirmative defense
claiming that in order to cure the defect, Univ Steel Smelting agreed to supply additional
steel bars for free and in case of unavailability, it authorized Pe to procure the same from
other suppliers at its expense. After the pretrial, Univ Steel Smelting filed a motion for
summary dismissal attaching an affidavit of merit to prove the obligation of Pe. The trial
court, affirmed by the then IAC, granted the motion.
Issue: WON summary judgment is warranted.
Held: NO.
Firmly settled is the rule that where there is an issue of fact joined by the parties or
where the facts pleaded by the parties are disputed or contested, neither one of them
can pray for summary judgment.
There is a factual dispute in this case which must be resolved and settled only by means
of a trial on the merits, and not by a perfunctory resolution which in effect deprives a
litigant of his day in court. It is desirable that evidence pro and contra be presented by
both parties to determine whose claim is true, a process which need not take long to
conclude. If petitioner can prove his allegations, then his obligation to Univ Steel
Smelting would be reduced or extinguished.

-----------------------------------

Judgment on the Pleadings

Summary judgment should not be granted where it fairly appears that there is a triable issue to be adjudicated, as in this
case. In conducting the hearing on the motion for a summary judgment, the purpose is not to try the issue but merely to
determine whether there is a meritorious issue to be tried. The court should not pass on questions of credibility or weight
of evidence. The summary judgment procedure should not be perverted to the trial of disputed questions of fact upon
affidavits.

Estrada vs. Hon. Consolacion

G.R. No. L-40948 June 29, 1976

Facts:
Estrada filed a complaint for damages against private respondents (owner and driver of
a jeep) for breach of contract of carriage. In their answer, defendants denied liability by
alleging that the mishap was due to the negligence of third persons. They also set up a
counterclaim for damages against Estrada. Private respondents then filed a motion for
summary judgment on the ground that there is no material fact in the case except for the
damages they are claiming from Estrada. They attached annexes to prove that they
were relieved of any liability. Estrada opposed, but nevertheless, trial court ordered that
private respondents have judgment summarily against the plaintiff for such amounts as
may be found due them, to be determined on a trial for that issue alone.
Issue: WON the order of the trial court can be considered as a summary judgment.
Held: NO.
When the moving party is a defending party, his pleadings, depositions or affidavits must
show that his defenses or denials are sufficient to defeat the claimant's claim. This
motion shall be served on the adverse party at least ten (10) days prior to the time
specified in the hearing. The adverse party may also, prior to said date, serve opposing
affidavits. The opposing papers, including pleadings, depositions, and affidavits must
establish a genuine issue of fact in order to defeat a motion for summary judgment.
In this case, private respondents showed affidavits to prove that the accident was due to
the fault of third persons. It is therefore incumbent upon Estrada to rebut such proof.
Having failed to do so, the defense of private respondents remains unrebuted. Estrada
did not submit opposing affidavits to controvert private respondents evidence; hence,
there was no genuine issue to any material fact and no controversial question of fact to
be submitted to the trial court. Thus, the Order of the trial court was merely interlocutory

Judgment on the Pleadings

directing that a hearing be conducted for the purpose of ascertaining the amount of
damages which may be awarded to the prevailing party.
-------------------------------------In the absence of any findings of fact and conclusions of law, the order of the trial court cannot be considered a judgment.
It has been held that "a trial court in granting summary judgment should file findings of fact and conclusion of law or a
memorandum opinion so as to disclose grounds upon which the trial court reached its determination.