This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2007-08-28 |
GARCIA, J. |
||||
| Incidentally, the instant motions for summary judgment were filed before the [anti- graft] Court could issue an order under Section 1, Rule 9[31] of the Rules of Court relative to the written interrogatories. Moreover, the factual details alleged and conclusions of fact and law adduced in the said pleadings largely rely on the terms and conditions of the [favored] contract ... and its amendments which are precisely being questioned ... to be a "favored contract". From the allegations of the defendants, it is apparent that the [Republic] extended enormous sums of money .... Even assuming ... that the factual background alleged in the Answer of ... Marcelo which was reiterated in the Answer of [MFC], to be true or to have been established or admitted, still, a genuine factual issue remains to be tried and that is whether or not the subject contract ... was a "favored contract" ... as it appears from the record that the implementation of its terms, as narrated by the defendants, had resulted in the expenditure of hundreds of millions of pesos on the part of the [Republic] without a single delivery having been made or required to be made .... The factual issue of whether or not the subject contract is a favored one, which we take to mean as "disadvantageous" to the government, is not settled by the allegation that the contract was implemented in the midst of a foreign exchange crisis and that the government failed to comply with the staggered payments which the government was required to tender before any delivery could be made by the ... [MFC] under the terms of the contract. For the defendant to invoke the terms of the contract to excuse the non-delivery of the subject matter thereof simply begs the questions because the very stipulations of the contract are in issue in this case.[32] (Words in brackets added) We examine the records and found that summary judgment is in order. Under Section 3, Rule 35 of the Rules of Court, summary judgment may be allowed where, save for the amount of damages, there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. Summary or accelerated judgment is a procedural technique aimed at weeding out sham claims or defenses at an early stage of the litigation, thereby avoiding the expense of time involved in a trial. Even if the pleadings appear, on their face, to raise issues, summary judgment may still ensue as a matter of law if the affidavits, depositions and admissions show that such issues are not genuine.[33] The presence or absence of a genuine issue as to any material fact determines, at bottom, the propriety of summary judgment. A genuine issue, as opposed to fictitious or contrived one, is an issue of fact that requires the presentation of evidence. To the moving party rests the onus of demonstrating the absence of any genuine issue of fact, or that the issue posed in the complaint is patently unsubstantial so as not to constitute a genuine issue for trial.[34] In Estrada v. Consolacion,[35] the Court stated that 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. The affidavits or depositions shall show that there is no defense to the cause of action or the cause of action has no merits, as the case may be. In fine, in proceedings for summary judgment, the burden of proof is upon the plaintiff to prove the cause of action and to show that the defense is interposed solely for the purpose of delay. After the plaintiff discharges its burden, the defendants has the burden to show facts sufficient to entitle him to defend. | |||||
|
2006-09-15 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| The theory of summary judgment is that although an answer may on its face appear to tender issues - requiring trial - yet if it is demonstrated by affidavits, depositions, or admissions that those issues are not genuine, but sham or fictitious, the Court is unjustified in dispensing with the trial and rendering summary judgment for plaintiff. The court is expected to act chiefly on the basis of the affidavits, depositions, admissions submitted by the movant, and those of the other party in opposition thereto. The hearing contemplated (with 10-day notice) is for the purpose of determining whether the issues are genuine or not, not to receive evidence on the issues set up in the pleadings. A hearing is not thus de riguer. The matter may be resolved, and usually is, on the basis of affidavits, depositions, admissions. This is not to say that a hearing may be regarded as a superfluity. It is not, and the Court has plenary discretion to determine the necessity therefore.[19] The second and fourth issues are inter-related and so they shall be resolved together. The second issue has reference to PCI Bank's claim of unjust enrichment on the part of Ong if it would be compelled to make good the manager's check it had issued. As asserted by PCI Bank under the fourth issue, Ong is not a holder in due course because the manager's check was drawn against a closed account; therefore, the same was issued without consideration. | |||||