This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2009-08-04 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| As may be noted, Civil Case No. 99-1354 came after the proceedings in SEC Case No. 12-97-5850, and LRC Case No. M-3839 had finally been terminated. Be that as it may, the answer in Civil Case No. 99-1354 diluted any admission, if there were indeed admissions, made in the SEC and LRC cases and, as the CA put it, "engenders a cloud of doubt as to the certainty of the facts as alleged." Such doubt should be resolved against the grant of the motion for summary judgment.[20] To paraphrase what we said in Tan v. De la Vega,[21] lower courts, when faced with a motion for summary judgment, should resolve doubts in favor of the party against whom it is directed, giving such party the benefit of all favorable inferences. | |||||
|
2002-09-19 |
BELLOSILLO, J. |
||||
| technique to promptly dispose of cases where the facts appear undisputed and certain from the pleadings, depositions, admissions and affidavits on record, or for weeding out sham claims or defenses at an early stage of the litigation to avoid the expense and loss of time involved in a trial.[49] Its object is to separate what is formal or pretended in denial or averment from what is genuine and substantial so that only the latter may subject a party in interest to the burden of trial. In the instant case, it is our conclusion that there is no basis for protesting the Summary Judgment since the trial court faithfully adhered to the proper function of accelerated judgment by adjudicating only the character of the issues raised in the pleadings as genuine, sham or fictitious, and only upon clear determination thereof did the court a quo proceed to render verdict. Since the civil action before the trial court was for foreclosure of real estate mortgage, the material issues were the existence of the debt and its demandability. Petitioner-spouses admitted the existence of the debt in favor of respondent Inter-Urban Developers, Inc. as | |||||