REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW I

(Rule 34, 35 and 36)

Submitted by: Juanzon, Carmelita B.

Submitted to: Hon. Judge Joselito Villarosa
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

RULE 34
JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS

Rule 34 of the Rules of Court speaks of judgment on the

pleadings. It is provided in Section 1 of this Rule that a judgment on
the pleadings is appropriate when an Answer fails to tender an issue,
or otherwise admits the material allegations of the adverse party’s
pleadings.

The concept of judgment on the pleadings will not apply when no

Answer is filed. It will come into operation when an Answer is served
and filed, and it can only be rendered when such Answer does not
tender any factual issue, or admits all the material allegations of the
pleading of the movant. Stated differently, a judgment on the
pleadings presupposes that there is no controverted issue whatsoever
between the parties, hence the plaintiff is also assumed to have
admitted all the relevant allegations of fact of the defendant in his
Answer.

Jurisprudence dictates that an Answer fails to tender an issue

when the material allegations of the other party are admitted or not
specifically denied by the pleader.

Under this Rule, a judgment on the pleadings must be on motion

of the claimant. When a party moves for judgment on the pleadings,
and the trial court grants the same, he thereby waives the presentation
of any evidence. The judgment is, therefore, based exclusively upon
the allegations appearing in the pleadings of the parties and the
annexes thereto, if any, without consideration of any evidence aliunde.

It is worthy to note that the trial court cannot direct a judgment on

the pleadings in the absence of a motion filed for the purpose by a
party litigant. However, if at the pre-trial the court finds that a
judgment on the pleadings is proper, it may render such judgment
motu proprio.
REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW 1
JUANZON, Carmelita B.
Hon. Judge Joselito Villarosa, Professor
Page |2
x--------------------------------------------------x

Judgment on the pleadings is not applicable in these cases:

1. Actions for the declaration of nullity of marriage;

2. Actions for annulment of marriage; and
3. Actions for legal separation.

In the aforementioned cases, judgment on the pleadings is not

applicable for the reason that the material facts alleged in the
complaint must always be proved, even if admitted by the adverse
party, to avoid collusion, as collusion is against public policy.

RULE 35
SUMMARY JUDGMENTS

A summary judgment is one granted by the court, upon motion of

either party, for an expeditious settlement of case, there appearing
from the pleadings, depositions, admissions, and affidavits that there
are no important questions or issues of fact involved (except as to the
amount of damages), and that therefore the moving party is entitled to
a judgment as a matter of law. Summary judgment can be rendered
where there is no genuine issue of fact and movant is entitled to a
judgment as a matter of law.

A summary judgment, also called accelerated judgment, is one

of the methods for prompt disposition of civil actions wherein there
exists no serious controversy. The procedure may be availed of not
only by claimants but also by defending parties who may the object of
unfounded claims. The remedy of summary judgment is applicable to
all actions, except when the material facts are required by law or the
Rules to be proved, such as actions for annulment of marriage, action
for nullity of marriage and legal separation. Likewise, the remedy does
not apply to election protests.

What triggers a summary judgment is the absence of a genuine

factual issue. Summary judgment is not warranted when there are
genuine issues which call for a full blown trial. By genuine issue is
meant an issue of fact which calls for the presentation of evidence as
distinguished from an issue which is sham, fictitious, contrived, set up
in bad faith and patently unsubstantial so as not to constitute a
genuine issue for trial. The court can determine this on the basis of
the pleadings, admissions, documents, affidavits and/or counter-
affidavits submitted by the parties to the court.
REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW 1
JUANZON, Carmelita B.
Hon. Judge Joselito Villarosa, Professor
Page |3
x--------------------------------------------------x

The party who moves for summary judgment has the burden of
proving the absence of any genuine issue of fact, and any doubt as to
its existence is resolved against the movant. Trial courts have limited
authority to render summary judgments and may do so only when
there is clearly no genuine issue as to any material facts of the case.
When the facts as pleaded by the parties are disputed or contested, or
opposed, proceedings for summary judgment cannot take the place of
trial.

Summary judgment is generally based on the facts proven

summarily by affidavits, depositions, pleadings, or admissions of the
parties. When the pleadings on file show that there are no genuine
issues of fact to be tried, the Rules allow a party to obtain immediate
relief by way of summary judgment. Section 3 of Rule 35 provides two
(2) requisites for summary judgment to be proper:

1. There must be no genuine issue as to any material fact, except

for the amount of damages; and
2. The party presenting the motion for summary judgment must be
entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.

The trial court cannot motu proprio decide that summary

judgment on an action is in order. Under the applicable provisions of
Rule 35, the defending party or the claimant, as the case may be, must
invoke the rule on summary judgment by filing a motion and the same
must be served at least ten (10) days before the time specified for the
hearing. The adverse party may serve opposing affidavits, depositions
or admissions at least three (3) days before the hearing. The affidavits
or counter-affidavits must be on personal knowledge. A party guilty of
bad faith in submitting the affidavit or of submitting it merely for delay
may be required to pay reasonable expenses incurred thereby,
including attorney’s fees, as well as cited for contempt.

Judgment shall be rendered forthwith if the pleadings show that,

except as to the amount of damages, there is no genuine issue as to
any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as
a matter of law.

To distinguish summary judgment from judgment on the

pleadings:
REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW 1
JUANZON, Carmelita B.
Hon. Judge Joselito Villarosa, Professor
Page |4
x--------------------------------------------------x

1) In judgment on the pleadings, there is an absence of a factual

issue in the case because the Answer tenders no issue at all;
while a summary judgment involves an issue but the issue is not
genuine. The issue is only as to the amount of damages but not
as to any material fact.
2) A motion for judgment on the pleadings is filed by a claiming
party such as the plaintiff or a counterclaimant; whereas a
motion for summary judgment may be filed by either the claiming
party or the defending party.
3) A judgment on the pleadings is based on the pleadings alone; on
the other hand, a summary judgment is based on the pleadings,
affidavits, depositions and admissions.
4) Only a 3-day notice to the adverse party is required prior to the
date of hearing in a motion for judgment on the pleadings; on the
contrary, a 10-day notice to the adverse party is required in a
motion for summary judgment. The adverse party in turn may
serve opposing affidavits, depositions or admissions at least 3
days before the hearing.

While Section 4 of this Rule authorizes the rendition of a partial

summary judgment, such judgment is interlocutory in nature and is not
a final and appealable judgment. The appeal from the partial summary
judgment should be taken together with the judgment in the entire
case after the trial shall been conducted on the material facts on which
a substantial controversy exists.

RULE 36
JUDGMENTS, FINAL ORDERS AND ENTRY THEREOF

JUDGMENT, Defined

Judgment is synonymous with the term “DECISION.” A

judgment is the final consideration and determination by a court of
competent jurisdiction regarding the rights or other matters submitted
to it in an action or proceeding. A judgment is the court’s official and
final consideration and determination of the respective rights and
obligations of the parties.

It is important to note that in the process of rendering a judgment

or in resolving controversies, courts can only consider facts and issues
that are pleaded by the parties. Courts may not substitute their own
personal knowledge for evidence, nor take notice of matters except
those expressly provided as subjects of mandatory judicial notice.
REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW 1
JUANZON, Carmelita B.
Hon. Judge Joselito Villarosa, Professor
Page |5
x--------------------------------------------------x

FINAL ORDER, Defined

Final order is an order of the court which disposes of the subject

matter in its entirety or terminates a particular proceeding or action,
leaving nothing else to be done but to enforce by execution what has
been determined by the court.

FINAL ORDERS, distinguished from INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS

A final order is one which disposes of the whole subject matter

or terminates a particular proceeding or action, leaving nothing to be
done but to enforce by execution what has been determined by the
court. On the other hand, interlocutory order is one which does not
dispose of a case completely but leaves something more to be
decided upon.

PARTS OF A JUDGMENT/DECISION

A judgment or decision is divided into two parts: the body of the

decision, or ratio decidendi, which contains the discussion and
explanation of the factual and legal reasons that led to the conclusion
of the court and the basis for the decision; and the dispositive
portion or fallo, which is the actual determinant of the rights and
obligations of the parties and sole basis for execution. In a criminal
case, the dispositive portion or fallo includes the finding of innocence
or guilt, the specific crime committed, the penalty imposed, among
others. While in a civil case, as well as in a special civil action, the
dispositive portion or fallo should state whether the complaint or
petition is granted or denied, the specific relief granted, and the costs
of suit.

The general rule is that where there is a conflict between the

dispositive portion or fallo of the decision and the body of the decision,
the fallo controls. However, where the conclusion from the body of the
decision is so clear that there was a mere mistake in the dispositive
portion, the body of the decision will prevail.

In case of ambiguity, it is suggested that the remedy to avail of is to

have the court, which rendered the judgment, remove the ambiguity by
the filing of a motion for clarificatory judgment and not to assail the
judgment as void.
REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW 1
JUANZON, Carmelita B.
Hon. Judge Joselito Villarosa, Professor
Page |6
x--------------------------------------------------x

REQUISITES OF A VALID JUDGMENT

As provided in Section 1 of Rule 36, a judgment in order to be

valid must concur with the following requisites:

1. The court must be clothed with authority to hear and determine

the matter before it.
2. The court must have jurisdiction over the parties and the subject
matter.
3. The parties must have been given the opportunity to adduce
evidence in their behalf.
4. The evidence must have been considered by the court in
deciding the case.
5. The judgment must be in writing, personally and directly
prepared by the judge.
6. The judgment must state clearly the facts and the law on which it
is based, signed by the judge and filed with the clerk of court.

Section 2 of Rule 36 presupposes that in the event no appeal or

motion for new trial or reconsideration is filed within the time
prescribed under the Rules of Court, the judgment or final order shall
be entered by the Clerk in the book of entries of judgment. A decision
becomes binding only after it is validly promulgated and not before.
Promulgation is the process by which a decision is published, officially
announced, made known to the public or delivered to the clerk of court
for filing, coupled with notice to the parties or their counsel.

A judgment becomes final and executory by operation of law, not

by judicial declaration. Finality of judgment becomes a fact upon the
lapse of the reglementary period for appeal and no appeal is
perfected. In such a situation, the prevailing party is entitled, as a
matter of right, to a writ of execution.

When a final judgment becomes executory, it becomes

immutable and unalterable not only as against the parties but even the
court. This is known as the Doctrine of Immutability of Judgments
which states that except for correction of clerical errors, final and
executory judgments can neither be amended nor altered even if the
modification is meant to correct erroneous conclusions of fact or law
and regardless of whether the modifications will be made by the court
rendering it or by the highest court of the land.
REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW 1
JUANZON, Carmelita B.
Hon. Judge Joselito Villarosa, Professor
Page |7
x--------------------------------------------------x

The general rule, therefore, is that final and executory judgments

are immutable and unalterable, except under three exceptions:
1. Clerical errors;
2. Nunc pro tunc entries which cause no prejudice to any party; and
3. Void judgment

VOID JUDGMENT – a judgment which has been rendered by a court

without jurisdiction over the subject matter or over the persons of the
defendant, or in violation of due process or one rendered in a case
which states no cause of action.

DOCTRINE OF CONCLUSIVENESS OF JUDGMENT

The doctrine of conclusiveness of judgment states that a fact or

question which was in issue in a former suit and was there judicially
passed upon and determined by a court of competent jurisdiction, is
conclusively settled by the judgment therein as far as the parties to
that action and persons in privity with them are concerned and cannot
be again litigated in any further action between such parties or their
privies, in the same court or any other court of concurrent jurisdiction
on either the same or different cause of action, while the judgment
remains unreversed by proper authority.

EFFECT OF FINAL JUDGMENTS: RES JUDICATA

The judgment or final order has the effect of res judicata

between the parties. The Doctrine of Res Judicata has been
explained as follows:

“The rule is that when material facts or questions, which were in

issue in a former action and were admitted or judicially determined, are
conclusively settled by a judgment therein, such facts or questions
become res judicata and may not again be litigated in a subsequent
action between the same parties or their privies regardless of the form
of the latter.”

The concept of res judicata embraces two aspects:

1) Bar by prior judgment or estoppel by verdict is the effect of a

judgment as a bar to the prosecution of a second action upon the
same claim, demand or cause of action.
REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW 1
JUANZON, Carmelita B.
Hon. Judge Joselito Villarosa, Professor
Page |8
x--------------------------------------------------x

2) Conclusiveness of judgment or rule of auter action pendent,

ordains that issues actually and directly resolved in a former suit
cannot again be raised in any future case between the same
parties involving a different cause of action.

The principle behind the doctrine of res judicata is that parties

ought not to be permitted to litigate the same issue more than once. In
order that there may be res judicata, it is required that:

1) The former judgment is final;

2) It has been rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction;
3) It is a judgment on the merits; and
4) Between the first and the second actions, there is identity of
parties, subject matter and cause of action.

A judgment is “on the merits” when it amounts to a declaration of

the law as to the respective rights and duties of the parties, based
upon the ultimate facts or state of facts disclosed by the pleadings and
evidence, and upon which the right of recovery depends, irrespective
of formal, technical or dilatory objection or contentions.

Anent Section 4 of Rule 36, the rule provides that a several

judgment is proper only when the liability of each party is clearly
separable and distinct from that of his co-parties, such that the claims
against each of them could have been the subject of separate suits, or
the judgment for or against one of them will not necessarily affect the
other. Where a common cause of action exists against the
defendants, as in actions against solidary debtors, a several judgment
is not proper.

On the other hand, Section 5 presupposes that there are several

claims for relief presented in a single action. Under this section, the
court, after determining the issues relative to a claim and considering
other circumstances, may render separate judgment, let us say, on teh
cross-claim or the counterclaim. The judgment will terminate the
action with respect to that claim and the action shall proceed as to the
remaining claims. Despite the rendition of a separate judgment, the
court may stay the execution of the separate judgment until the
rendition of a judgment on all the other claims.

Lastly, Section 6 states that when the judgment is rendered

against two or more persons such as an entity without juridical
personality, the judgment shall set out their individual or proper names,
if known.
REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW 1
JUANZON, Carmelita B.
Hon. Judge Joselito Villarosa, Professor
Page |9
x--------------------------------------------------x

-=o0o=-