Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
THIRD DIVISION
DECISION
PANGANIBAN, J.:
THIRD DIVISION
In a summary judgment, the crucial question is: are the issues raised
by the opposing party not genuine so as to justify a summary
judgment?28
First off, we rule that the issue regarding the propriety of the service
of a copy of the demand letter on the petitioner in his office is a sham
issue. It is not a bar to the issuance of a summary judgment in
respondent's favor.
2
Penned by Associate Justice Renato C. Dacudao with Associate Justices Mario L. Guariña
III and Fernanda Lampas-Peralta, concurring. Rollo, pp. 37-52.
3
Penned by Judge Lucas P. Bersamin (now a Justice of the Court of Appeals).
4
Rollo, pp. 61-64.
5
Id. at 93.
6
GUARANTY
This Guaranty made and executed this 17th day of April 2000 at Makati City, Philippines, by
and between:
Benajamin M. Bitanga, of legal age, Filipino, married, with office address located at 314
Sen. Gil Puyat Avenue, Makati City (hereafter referred to as the "Guarantor")
- in favor of '
W I T N E S S E T H: That '
WHEREAS, on 17 April 2000, Pyramid and Macrogen Realty Corporation (hereafter referred
to as the "Debtor") executed a Compromise Agreement (hereafter referred to as
"Agreement"), acknowledged before Jose Vicente B. Salazar Notary Public for Makati City,
as Doc. No. 118, Page 25, Book No. 2, Series of 2000;
WHEREAS, in said Agreement, Macrogen, in order to put an end to CIAC Case No. 36-99,
agreed to pay and Pyramid has agreed to accept the total amount of SIX MILLION PESOS
(P6,000,000.00), payable in six monthly installments, on the 15th day of each month,
beginning in June 15, 2000;
WHEREAS, the Guarantor agrees to execute and deliver to Pyramid an irrevocable and
unconditional guaranty for the due and punctual payment of the principal amount of Six
Million Pesos (P6,000,000.00) due and payable by the Debtor to Pyramid under the
Agreement.
NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the foregoing and for other good and valuable
consideration, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged by the Guarantor, the latter agrees
as follows:
1.2. The Guarantor irrevocably and unconditionally agrees that this Guaranty shall be a
continuing guaranty and as such shall remain in full force and effect and be binding on the
Guarantor until all sums payable by the Debtor under and pursuant to the Agreement shall
have been fully paid by the Debtor. (Rollo, pp. 136-137.)
7
Rollo, p. 101.
8
Id. at 104.
9
Id. at 106.
10
Id. at 202.
11
Id. at 120.
12
Rollo, p. 124.
13
Id. at 113.
14
Id. at 125-126.
15
Id. at 127.
16
Machetti v. Hospicio de San Jose, 43 Phil. 297, 301 (1922).
17
Article 2060. In order that the guarantor may make use of the benefit of excussion, he
must set it up against the creditor upon the latter's demand for payment from him, and
point out to the creditor available property of the debtor within Philippine territory, sufficient
to cover the amount of the debt.
18
Luzon Steel Corporation v. Sia, 138 Phil. 62, 68 (1969).
19
Article 2062 of the Civil Code.
20
The RTC was referring to the respondent's prayer for attorney's fees and expenses of
litigation in its Complaint. The records, however, do not show that respondent acted
pursuant to this directive of the RTC. Rollo, p. 374.
21
Rollo, p. 376.
22
Id. at 51-52.
23
G.R. No. 132196, 9 December 2005, 477 SCRA 85.
24
Rollo, pp. 63-64.
25
Id. at 443.
26
Id. at 445-446.
27
Equitable PCI Bank v. Ong, G.R. No. 156207, 15 September 2006, 502 SCRA 127, 129.
28
Wood Technology Corporation v. Equitable Banking Corporation, G.R. No. 153867, 17
February 2005, 451 SCRA 725, 733.
29
Agbada v. Inter-Urban Developers, Inc., 438 Phil. 168, 190-191 (2002).
30
Records, p. 402.
31
Rollo, p. 201.
32
Id. at 98.
33
Omnia praesemuntur rite et solemniter esse acta donee probetur in contrarium.
34
Gold Line Transit, Inc. v. Ramos, 415 Phil. 492, 502-503 (2001).
35
Rivera v. Solidbank, G.R. No. 163269, 19 April 2006, 487 SCRA 512, 535.
36
Rollo, pp. 47-48.
37
JN Development Corporation v. Philippine Export and Foreign Loan Guarantee
Corporation, G.R. No. 151060, 31 August 2005, 468 SCRA 554, 564.
38
Other relevant provisions of the Civil Code reads:
Art. 2058. The guarantor cannot be compelled to pay the creditor unless the latter has
exhausted all the property of the debtor, and has resorted to all the legal remedies against
the debtor.
Art. 2061. The guarantor having fulfilled all the conditions required in the preceding article,
the creditor who is negligent in exhausting the property pointed out shall suffer the loss, to
the extent of said property, for the insolvency of the debtor resulting from such negligence.
Art. 2062. In every action by the creditor, which must be against the principal debtor alone,
except in the cases mentioned in article 2059, the former shall ask the court to notify the
guarantor of the action. The guarantor may appear so that he may, if he so desire, set up
such defenses as are granted him by law. The benefit of excussion mentioned in article
2058 shall always be unimpaired, even if judgment should be rendered against the principal
debtor and the guarantor in case of appearance by the latter.
39
JN Development Corporation v. Philippine Export and Foreign Loan Guarantee
Corporation, supra note 37.
40
Rollo, p. 48.
Summary judgment 17 is a procedure aimed at weeding out sham claims or defenses at an early stage
of the litigation. The proper inquiry in this regard would be whether the affirmative defenses offered by
petitioners constitute genuine issues of fact requiring a full-blown trial. 18 In a summary judgment, the
crucial question is: are the issues raised by petitioners not genuine so as to justify a summary
judgment? 19 A "genuine issue" means an issue of fact which calls for the presentation of evidence, as
distinguished from an issue which is fictitious or contrived, an issue that does not constitute a genuine
issue for trial. 2
Pascual v consolidated rural bank of bohol g.r. no. 202597
We remind that the summary judgment is a procedural technique that is proper under Section 3, Rule 35 of
the Rules of Court only if there is no genuine issue as to the existence of a material fact, and that the moving
party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.15 It is a method intended to expedite or promptly dispose
of cases where the facts appear undisputed and certain from the pleadings, depositions, admissions, and
affidavits on record.16 The term genuine issue is defined as an issue of fact that calls for the presentation of
evidence as distinguished from an issue that 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.
Where the facts pleaded by the parties are disputed or contested, proceedings for a summary judgment cannot
take the place of a trial.17 The party moving for the summary judgment has the burden of clearly
demonstrating the absence of any genuine issue of fact.18 Upon the plaintiff rests the burden to prove the
cause of action, and to show that the defense is interposed solely for the purpose of delay. After the plaintiffs
burden has been discharged, the defendant has the burden to show facts sufficient to entitle him to defend.
15
See Solid Manila Corporation v. Bio Hong Trading Co., Inc., G.R. No. 90596, April 8, 1991, 195 SCRA 748,
756; Arradaza v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 50422, February 8, 1989, 170 SCRA 12, 20; De Leon v. Faustino,
L-15804, 110 Phil. 249, 253 (1960).
16
Bayang v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 53564, February 27, 1987, 148 SCRA 91, 94; Viajara v. Estenzo, No.
L-43882, April 30, 1979, 89 SCRA 685, 696.
17
Excelsa Industries, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 105455, August 23, 1995, 247 SCRA 560, 566;
citing Paz v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 85332, January 11, 1990, 181 SCRA 26, 30; Caderao v. Estenzo, No.
L-42408, September 21, 1984, 132 SCRA 93, 100.
18
Excelsa Industries, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, supra at 566-567, citing Viajar v. Estenzo, supra at 697; and Paz
v. Court of Appeals, supra at 31.