Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

WOOD TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION v. EQUITABLE BANKING CORPORATION

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 207970 2016-01-20	FERNANDO MEDICAL ENTERPRISES v. WESLEYAN UNIVERSITY PHILIPPINES BERSAMIN, J.
The essential query in resolving a motion for judgment on the pleadings is whether or not there are issues of fact generated by the pleadings.[28] Whether issues of fact exist in a case or not depends on how the defending party's answer has dealt with the ultimate facts alleged in the complaint. The defending party's answer either admits or denies the allegations of ultimate facts in the complaint or other initiatory pleading. The allegations of ultimate facts the answer admit, being undisputed, will not require evidence to establish the truth of such facts, but the allegations of ultimate facts the answer properly denies, being disputed, will require evidence.
	GR No. 190236 2015-06-15	DENNIS MORTEL v. MICHAEL BRUNDIGE BRION, J.
The Court explained the nature of summary judgment in Wood Technology Corporation v. Equitable Banking Corporation:[6]
	GR No. 196251 2014-07-09	OLIVAREZ REALTY CORPORATION v. BENJAMIN CASTILLO LEONEN, J.
An issue of material fact exists if the answer or responsive pleading filed specifically denies the material allegations of fact set forth in the complaint or pleading. If the issue of fact "requires the presentation of evidence, it is a genuine issue of fact."[93] However, if the issue "could be resolved judiciously by plain resort"[94] to the pleadings, affidavits, depositions, and other papers on file, the issue of fact raised is sham, and the trial court may resolve the action through summary judgment.
	GR NO. 156304 2006-10-23	ANACLETO R. MENESES v. SECRETARY OF AGRARIAN REFORM AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
What the RTC obviously meant to be filed was a motion for summary judgment, a procedural device designed for the prompt disposition of actions, which may be rendered if the pleadings, supporting affidavits, depositions and admissions on file show that, after a summary hearing, there is no genuine issue regarding any material fact, except as to the amount of damages, and the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law, and which may be applied for by either a claimant or a defending party.[30] This is obvious from the fact that although the Answers raised issues, these were not factual ones requiring trial, nor were they genuine issues,[31] as the parties were able to agree to limit the same to whether petitioners are entitled to just compensation under R.A. No. 6657 and not P.D. No. 27.[32]