Spouses

Pascual v. First Consolidated Rural Bank [G.R. No. 202597, Feb 8. 2017] HELD:

1. Spouses Pascual filed a petition for annulment before the CA to set aside A. The filing of the motion for summary judgment may be done PRIOR to the pre-
the decision by the RTC ordering the cancellation of their notice of lis trial.
pendens recorded in a TCT.
2. After the responsive pleadings to the petition were filed, the CA: Sec. 1 R35 permits a party seeking to recover upon a claim, counterclaim, or cross-
a. Scheduled the preliminary conference on Oct 4, 2011 claim or seeking declaratory relief to file the motion for a summary judgment upon
b. Ordered the parties to file pre-trial brief all or any part thereof in his favor (and its supporting affidavits, depositions or
3. But instead of filing the pre-trial brief as ordered by the CA, the spouses admissions) “AT ANY TIME after the pleading in answer thereto has been served;"
filed a Motion for Summary Judgment and a Motion to Hold Pre-Trial in
Abeyance. Summary judgment is proper only when there is NO GENUINE ISSUE as to the
4. At the scheduled prelim conference, the spouses & their counsel didn’t existence of a material fact + moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of
appear. law.
5. CA rendered judgment dismissing the petition for annulment: • It is to expedite/promptly dispose of cases where the FACTS appear
a. Citing Sec. 4-6 R18, wherein the parties & their counsel should UNDISPUTED and CERTAIN FROM the pleadings, depositions admissions,
appear at the pre-trial. And that failure of the plaintiff to appear and affidavits on record.
is a cause for dismissal of the action (with prejudice). Further,
failure to file a pre-trial brief has the same effect as that of “Genuine issue” issue of fact that calls for the presentation of evidence
failure to appear at the pre-trial. “No genuine issue” an issue that is sham, fictitious, contrived, set up in bad faith
b. Only at the pre-trial that the RoC allows the courts to render and patently unsubstantial.
judgment on the pleadings & summary judgment. [CA cited Sec. • In here, the court can determine it on the basis of the pleadings,
2(g) R18] admissions, documents, affidavits, and/or counter-affidavits submitted by
6. Spouses filed MR but CA denied it. the parties to the court

Spouses’ argument: If facts pleaded by parties are DISPUTED/CONTESTED = there must be trial and
proceedings for summary judgment can’t take the place of a trial
a) It was wrong for the CA to rule that it is only at the pre-trial that the rules
allow the courts to render judgment on the pleadings & summary Party moving for summary judgment:
judgment. • Burden to clearly demonstrate the ABSENCE of any genuine issue of fact.
b) Their motion (Motion for Summary Judgment and a Motion to Hold Pre-
Trial in Abeyance) should have been first resolved before the pre-trial Plaintiff - burden to prove the cause of actions & show the defense interposed is
could proceed. merely to delay.
c) Their non-appearance was not mandatory, wherein Sec. 2(g) R18 was Defendant - after plaintiff discharges such burden, it is now shifted to it to show
superseded by AM NO. 3-1-9 SC facts sufficient to entitle him to defend.

ISSUE/S:

1. Did the CA err in ruling that it is only during pre-trial that a court may
render judgment on the pleadings/summary judgment? YES.
2. Should their motion be resolved first? NO.


 CA misinterpreted Sec 2(g), R18 of the ROC • Wherein, the trial court could then determine "the propriety of rendering a
summary judgment dismissing the case based on the disclosures made at
SC held that that such rule only means that: the pre-trial or a judgment based on the pleadings, evidence identified and
admissions made during pre-trial.”
If a motion for summary judgment/judgment on the pleadings was earlier filed:

• The pre-trial MAY BE the occasion wherein the court considers the
propriety of rendering judgment on the pleadings/summary judgment

If NO MOTION was earlier filed:

• Pre-trial judge may then indicate to the proper party TO INITATE the
rendition of such judgment by filing the necessary motion.

Note:
• The pre-trial judge CANNOT motu proprio render the judgment on the
pleadings/summary judgment.
• As to summary judgment - adverse party is entitled to COUNTER the
motion.

Remedy:
• The SC said that the spouses could have urged the Court to resolve their
pending Motion for Summary judgment DURING the pre-trial.


B. Petitioner can’t insist that CA should have first resolved their motion before
holding the pre-trial.

• SC held that such inaction on their motion can’t be the reason to justify
their nonappearance at the pre-trial & their inability to file the pre-trial
brief as ordered by the CA. Since their appearance w/ their counsel was
mandatory.

AM 03-01-09 (Guidelines to be Observed by Trial Court Judges and Clerks of Court in
the Conduct of Pre- Trial and Use of Deposition-Discovery Measures) did NOT
amend Sec. 2(g) R18.

• The administrative circular still affirmed the mandatory character of the
pre-trial, it embodied therein that “Failure of the plaintiff to appear at the
pre-trial shall be a cause for dismissal of the action. A similar failure of the
defendant shall be a cause to allow the plaintiff to present his evidence ex-
parte and the court to render judgment on the basis thereof.”