 |
|||
|
| |||
Aggrieved, the petitioners filed their Motion for Reconsideration (on the Resolution dated 16 November 2011),7 which the CA denied on January 9, 2012 for being filed out of time.8 Unrelenting, they presented a Respectful Motion for Reconsideration (on the Resolution dated 9 January 2012), which the CA also denied on June 20, 2012.9 Hence, this appeal by petition for review on certiorari. Ruling of the Court We deny the petition for review for its lack of merit. 1. Motions and other papers sent to the CA The petitioners received the assailed resolution of November 16, 2011 on November 24, 2011.10 Under Section l, Rule 52 of the Rules of Court,11 they had 15 days from receipt (or until December 9, 2011) within which to move for its reconsideration or to appeal to the Supreme Court. They dispatched the Motion for Reconsideration (on the Resolution dated 16 November 2011) on December 9, 2011 through private courier (LBC). The CA actually received the motion on December 12, 2011.12 Considering that Section 1 (d) of Rule III of the 2009 Internal Rules of the Court of Appeals provided that motions sent through private messengerial services are deemed filed on the date of the CA's actual receipt of the same,13 the motion was already filed out of time by December 12, 2011. Needless to remind, the running of the period of appeal of the final resolution promulgated on November 16, 2011 was not stopped, rendering the assailed resolution final and executory by operation of law.14 2. Although motions for summary judgment The petitioners contend that their Motion for Summary Judgment and Motion to Hold Pre-Trial in Abeyance needed to be first resolved before the pre-trial could proceed; that the CA erred in declaring that "it is only at the pre-trial that the rules allow the courts to render judgment on the pleadings and summary judgment, as provided by Section 2(g) of Rule 18 of the Rules of Court;" and that the CA overlooked their submission in their Opposition with Explanation to the effect that Section 2(g), Rule 18 of the Rules of Court was superseded by Administrative Circular No. 3-99 dated January 15, 1999 and A.M. No. 03-1-09-SC dated August 16, 2004. The petitioners' contentions have no merit. We consider it erroneous on the part of the CA to declare that "it is only at the pre-trial that the rules allow the courts to render judgment on the pleadings and summary judgment, as provided by Section 2(g) of Rule 18 of the Rules of Court." The filing of the motion for summary judgment may be done prior to the pre-trial. Section 1, Rule 3 5 of the Rules of Court permits a party seeking to recover upon a claim, counterclaim, or cross-claim or seeking declaratory relief to file the motion for a summary judgment upon all or any part thereof in his favor (and its supporting affidavits, depositions or admissions) "at any time after the pleading in answer thereto has been served;" while Section 2 of Rule 35 instructs that a party against whom a claim, counterclaim, or cross-claim is asserted or a declaratory relief is sought may file the motion for summary judgment (and its supporting affidavits, depositions or admissions) upon all or any part thereof "at any time." As such, the petitioners properly filed their motion for summary judgment prior to the pre-trial (assuming that they thereby complied with the requirement of supporting affidavits, depositions or admissions). 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.19 The CA could have misconceived the text of Section 2(g), Rule 18 of the Rules of Court, to wit:
To be clear, the rule only spells out that unless the motion for such judgment has earlier been filed the pre-trial may be the occasion in which the court considers the propriety of rendering judgment on the pleadings or summary judgment. If no such motion was earlier filed, the pre-trial judge may then indicate to the proper party to initiate the rendition of such judgment by filing the necessary motion. Indeed, such motion is required by either Rule 3420 (Judgment on the Pleadings) or Rule 3521 (Summary Judgment) of the Rules of Court. The pre-trial judge cannot motu proprio render the judgment on the pleadings or summary judgment. In the case of the motion for summary judgment, the adverse party is entitled to counter the motion. Even so, the petitioners cannot validly insist that the CA should have first resolved their Motion for Summary Judgment before holding the pretrial.1âwphi1 They could not use the inaction on their motion to justify their nonappearance with their counsel at the pre-trial, as well as their inability to file their pre-trial brief. In that regard, their appearance at the pre-trial with their counsel was mandatory. The petitioners argue that their non-appearance was not mandatory, positing that Section 2(g), Rule 18 of the Rules of Court had been amended by Administrative Circular No. 3-99 and A.M. No. 03-1-09-SC issued on July 13, 2004 but effective on August 16, 2004. The petitioners' argument was unwarranted. Administrative Circular No. 3-99 dated January 15, 1999 still affirmed the mandatory character of the pre-trial, to wit:
A.M. No. 03-1-09-SC (Guidelines to be Observed by Trial Court Judges and Clerks of Court in the Conduct of Pre-Trial and Use of Deposition-Discovery Measures) - adopted for the purpose of abbreviating court proceedings, ensuring the prompt disposition of cases, decongesting court dockets, and further implementing the pre-trial guidelines laid down in Administrative Circular No. 3-99 - similarly underscored the mandatory character of the pre-trial, and reiterated under its heading Pre-Trial in civil cases that, among others, the trial court could then determine "the propriety of rendering a summary judgment dismissing the case based on the disclosures made at the pre-trial or a judgment based on the pleadings, evidence identified and admissions made during pre-trial."22 As such, they could have urged the trial court to resolve their pending Motion for Summary Judgment during the pre-trial.. WHEREFORE, the Court AFFIRMS the assailed resolutions of the Court of Appeals promulgated in CA-G.R. SP No. 04020-MIN; and ORDERS the petitioners to pay the costs of suit. SO ORDERED. LUCAS P. BERSAMIN WE CONCUR: PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.
ALFREDO BENJAMIN S. CAGUIOA* A T T E S T A T I O N I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division. PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR. C E R T I F I C A T I O N Pursuant to the Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution and the Division Chairperson’s Attestation, I certify that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division. MARIA LOURDES P.A. SERENO Footnotes * Designated as additional Member of the Third Division per Special Order No. 2417 dated January 4, 2017. 1 Rollo, p. 8. 2 Id. 3 Id. at 8-9. 4 Id. at 31. 5 Id. at 31-34; penned by Associate Edgardo T. Lloren and concurred in by Associate Justice Romulo V. Borja and Associate Justice Zenaida T. Galapate-Laguilles. 6 Id. at 32-34. 7 Id. at 98-106. 8 Id. at 36. 9 Id. at 39-41. 10 Id. at 7. 11 Section 1. Period for Filing. - A party may file a motion for reconsideration or a judgment or final resolution within fifteen (15) days from notice thereof, with proof or service on the adverse party. (n) 12 Rollo, p. 36. 13 Section 1(d) of Rule III of the 2009 Internal Rules of the Court of Appeals provides: x x xx (d) Pleadings, motions and other papers may also be filed by ordinary mail, private messengerial service or any mode other than personal delivery and registered mail as may be allowed by law or the Rules. However, they shall be deemed filed on the date and time of receipt by the Court, which shall be legibly stamped by the receiving clerk on the first page thereof and on the envelope containing the same, and signed by him/her. (Sec. 4, Rule 3, RIRCA[a]) 14 Ibasco v. Private Development Corporation of the Philippines, G. R. No. 1624 73, October 12, 2009, 603 SCRA 317, 320. 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. 19 Excelsa Industries, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, supra at 567, citing Estrada v. Consolacion, No. L-40948, June 29, 1976, 71 SCRA 523, 529. 20 Section 1. Judgment on the pleadings. - Where an answer fails to tender an issue, or otherwise admits the material allegations of the adverse party's pleading, the court may, on motion of that party, direct judgment on such pleading. However, in actions for declaration of nullity or annulment of marriage or for legal separation, the material facts alleged in the complaint shall always be proved. (1a, R19) 21 Section 1. Summary judgment for claimant. - A party seeking to recover upon a claim, counterclaim, or cross-claim or to obtain a declaratory relief may, at any time after the pleading in answer thereto has been served, move with supporting affidavits, depositions or admissions for a summary judgment in his favor upon all or any part thereof. (1a, R34) Sec. 2. Summary judgment for defending party. - A party against whom a claim, counterclaim, or cross-claim is asserted or a declaratory relief is sought may, at any time, move with supporting affidavits, depositions or admissions for a summary judgment in his favor as to all or any part thereof. (2a, R34) Sec. 3. Motion and proceedings thereon. - The motion shall 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. After the hearing, the judgment sought shall be rendered forthwith if the pleadings, supporting affidavits, depositions, and admissions on file, 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. (3a, R34) 22 A.M. No. 03-1-09-SC, l,A,5,h. The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation 
| |||
