Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1991 > February 1991 Decisions > G.R. No. 75282 February 19, 1991 - ARCHIPELAGO BUILDERS v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 75282. February 19, 1991.]

ARCHIPELAGO BUILDERS (should be PAULINO G. PE, doing business under the name and style "ARCHIPELAGO BUILDERS"), **, Petitioner, v. HON. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT and UNIVERSAL STEEL SMELTING CO., INC., Respondents.

Isidro T . Sanvictores for Petitioner.

Napoleon L. Apostol for Private Respondent.


D E C I S I O N


REGALADO, J.:


This is a review of the decision of the former Intermediate Appellate Court which affirmed in toto the summary judgment rendered in favor of private respondent by the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City in its Civil Case No. Q-37642. 1

The facts as found by respondent court are as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"In its complaint filed on March 15, 1983, amended on September 9, 1983, the Universal Steel Smelting Co., Inc., prayed that Paulino G. Pe doing business under the name of ‘Archipelago Builders’ be ordered to pay the plaintiff P167,663.33 with interest plus attorney’s fees for unpaid accounts on purchases of construction materials.

"In his answer to the amended complaint, defendant admitted having made purchases of steel bars between February 26, 1982 to June 8, 1982 but alleged that the steel delivered were not the specifications agreed upon and were found to be deficient in weight and stress.

"Defendant admitted an obligation to the plaintiff but not in the amount of P167,663.33 as alleged by plaintiff. Defendant also alleged in its affirmative defense that on February 15, 1982 Paulino G. Pe executed a written contract with the owner on the construction of the proposed J.M.S. International Building at Vito Cruz Extension, Makati, Metro Manila, resulting in a tie-up with plaintiff whereby the latter will supply the required steel bars as per specifications at the jobsite for the account of Paulino G. Pe, the contractor.

"He further averred that the steel bars supplied by plaintiff were not as per specifications agreed upon and as tested several times were found to be deficient in weight and stress, thus causing the temporary stoppage of the work at the jobsite for about six (6) weeks, such that remedial measures were adopted and agreed to by plaintiff’s representatives, Mr. Benjamin So and Atty. Alfredo David and the answering defendant so that he incurred additional expenses in the amount of P135,236.10 which should be reimbursed by plaintiff to Paulino G. Pe and which precipitated the stoppage of payment of PCIB Check No. 093702 issued by said defendant to plaintiff in the amount of P133,520.87.

"On account of the delay of about six weeks in the construction work at the jobsite the owner of the building being constructed enforced against the answering defendant the penalty clause provided for in the building contract for which the amount of liquidated damages was assessed at P184,800.00, against said defendant which should be assumed by the plaintiff. On these two items alone, defendant suffered actual damages in the amount of P320,036.10. Even under the claim of plaintiff in the amount of P167,663.33 there is still a difference of P152,372.77 in favor of the defendant.

"After the pre-trial was terminated, plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment attaching an affidavit of merit to prove the obligation of the defendant. The defendant opposed said motion. (p. 219, record)" 2

On August 17, 1984, the lower court granted the motion and accordingly rendered a summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff, ordering herein petitioner, as defendant therein, to pay private respondent, as plaintiff therein, the sum of P167,663.33 with interest at 14% from June 8, 1983 until fully paid, and attorney’s fees of P30,000.00 and costs, and dismissing petitioner’s counterclaim. 3

On appeal, respondent court affirmed the decision of the court below, hence the present petition the central issue of which is whether a summary judgment is legal and proper under the circumstances in this case.

Rule 34 of the Rules of Court authorizes the rendition of a summary judgment when on motion of the plaintiff, after the answer to the complaint had been filed, it would appear at the hearing for such a judgment, from the pleadings, depositions and admissions on file, together with the affidavits that, except as to the amount of damages, there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the winning party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.chanrobles law library : red

In the case at bar, summary judgment is not warranted. An examination of the pleadings shows that petitioner duly raised substantial and triable issues of fact, to wit: that the total amount of steel bars he purchased from private respondent is worth P380,000.00 only, and not P414,182.46, as claimed by private respondent, since the other deliveries valued at P34,142.46 were given free per their oral agreement, to make up for the deficiencies in weight and stress of the defective steel bars supplied by private respondent, aside from the other steel bars petitioner had to purchase to complete said deficiencies.chanrobles lawlibrary : rednad

Petitioner correctly and specifically points out that there are genuine triable issues which should be ventilated to determine which allegations of fact are correct:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"For instance, plaintiff-appellee (private respondent hereinafter), in support of its motion for summary judgment (Annex ‘D’), submitted the affidavit of Alfredo David, its collection manager, stating that private respondent sold to Paulino G. Pe (petitioner hereafter) various quantities of steel bars in the amount of P414,182.46 between February 26, 1982 to June 8, 1982 covered by its invoices marked as Annexes ‘A’, ‘A-1’ to ‘A-21’ (Emphasis supplied).

"Upon the other hand, in his Pre-Trial Brief (Annex ‘K’) dated April 30, 1984, petitioner admitted having made purchases of steel bars from private respondent from February 26, 1982 to April 5, 1982 as per Annexes ‘A’ to ‘A-17’ of their amended complaint in the total amount of P380,040.00 but denied that the deliveries covered by their Annexes ‘A-18’ to ‘A-21’ in the total amount of P34,142.46 were his purchases, as they covered deliveries of steel bars supplied by private respondent at the jobsite for FREE to make up for the deficiencies in weight and stress of the defective steel bars supplied by them, and those that could not be supplied by them, petitioner was free to procure the same from other sources as agreed upon. (Emphasis supplied.)

"On this point, the admission claimed by private respondent to have been made by petitioner and which was adopted by the Intermediate Appellate Court in its decision (page 3 paragraph 2, Annex ‘A’) was in the aggregate amount of P414,182.46. This was not true as this was specifically denied under oath by petitioner in his Answer to the Amended Complaint (par. 4 of the Answer on page 14 of the Appellant’s Brief, Annex ‘H’). In the same answer (par. 19) petitioner manifested that his total claims against private respondent was in the total amount of P330,036.10, consisting of additional expenses of P135,236.10 incurred by virtue of an agreement between the litigating parties as remedial measures against defective steel bars supplied by private respondent and liquidated damages of P184,800.00 due to the delay in the construction works caused by the defective steel bars. Thus deducting from P320,036.10 there would still be a balance of P152,372.77 in favor of petitioner.

"On the findings of the Intermediate Appellate Court that petitioner in his Counter-Affidavit (Annex ‘E-1’) did not deny the receipt of the steel bars unpaid for, suffice it to say that in paragraphs 4 and 5 thereof, petitioner virtually denied his indebtedness with the private respondent when he alleged that the steel bars supplied by private respondent were defective and that subsequent events which transpired thereafter and which were pleaded accordingly, negated the claim of private respondent that petitioner was still indebted to it.

"He denied this claim specifically and under oath in paragraph 3 of the Verification and Denial Under Oath of his Answer on page 21 of Appellant’s Brief (Annex ‘H’). These denials were reiterated in petitioner’s Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment dated July 23, 1984 (Annex ‘E’) and in the attached Counter-Affidavit (Annex ‘E-1’), and in Petitioner’s Rejoinder to Plaintiffs Reply to Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment dated August 3, 1984 (Annex ‘G’). 4

The foregoing submissions present a factual dispute which must be resolved and settled only by means of a trial on the merits, and not by a perfunctory resolution which in effect deprives a litigant of his day in court. It is desirable that evidence pro and contra be presented by both parties to determine whose claim is true, a process which need not take long to conclude. If petitioner can prove, as he represents he can by testimonial and documentary evidence, that the steel bars delivered by private respondent failed to comply with the standard set by law and that in order to cure said defect private respondent agreed to supply additional steel bars for free and, in case of unavailability of supply, it authorized petitioner to procure the same from other suppliers at its expense, then this will extinguish or reduce the amount claimed by private Respondent.chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

Firmly settled is the rule that where there is an issue of fact joined by the parties or where the facts pleaded by the parties are disputed or contested, neither one of them can pray for summary judgment. 5 Where the facts pleaded by the parties are disputed or contested, proceedings for a summary judgment cannot take the place of trial, wherein the parties may submit their respective witnesses and evidence in support of their respective factual contentions. 6

Summary judgment should not be granted where it fairly appears that there is a triable issue to be adjudicated, as in this case. In conducting the hearing on the motion for a summary judgment, the purpose is not to try the issue but merely to determine whether there is a meritorious issue to be tried. The court should not pass on questions of credibility or weight of evidence. The summary judgment procedure should not be perverted to the trial of disputed questions of fact upon affidavits. 7

In case there is doubt as to the propriety of a summary judgment, the doubt shall be resolved against the moving party. The court should take that view of evidence most favorable to the party against whom it is directed and give that party the benefit of all favorable inferences. 8 The trial courts have but limited authority to render summary judgments and may do so only in cases where there is clearly no genuine issue as to any material fact. The rule does not invest the court with jurisdiction summarily to try the factual issue on affidavits, but authorizes summary judgment only if it clearly appears that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact. 9

WHEREFORE, the appealed decision of respondent court is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE and the records of this case are remanded to the court of origin for trial on the merits.chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

SO ORDERED.

Melencio-Herrera, Paras, Padilla and Sarmiento, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



* This title of the petition adopts the correction indicated by the Intermediate Appellate Court in AC-G.R. CV. No. 05250.

1. Penned by Justice Jorge R. Coquia, with Justices Mariano A. Zosa and Floreliana Castro-Bartolome concurring.

2. Rollo, 30-31.

3. Original Record, 243.

4. Rollo, 15-17.

5. Magallanes v. Kayanan, Et Al., 69 SCRA 29 (1976).

6. Auman, Et. Al. v. Estenzo, Et Al., 69 SCRA 524 (1976); Loreno, Et. Al. v. Estenzo, Et Al., 73 SCRA 630; Viajar, Et. Al. v. Estenzo, Et Al., 89 SCRA 684.

7. Estrada v. Consolacion, Et Al., 71 SCRA 523 (1976); Natalia Realty Corporation v. Vallez, Et Al., 173 SCRA 534 (1989).

8. Gatchalian v. Pavilin, Et Al., 6 SCRA 508 (1962); Viajar, Et. Al. v. Estenzo, Et Al., supra.

9. Agcanas v. Nagum, 32 SCRA 298 (1970); Gatchalian v. Pavilin, ante.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






February-1991 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 84450 February 4, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GLORIA A. UMALI , ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 91231 February 4, 1991 - NESTLE PHILIPPINES, INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 82882 February 5, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CRISTINA DE LEON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 85156 February 5, 1991 - LOURDES R. QUISUMBING, ET AL. v. MANUEL LUIS GUMBAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 90870 February 5, 1991 - ALEXANDER LOZANO. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 30712 February 6, 199

    REPARATIONS COMMISSION v. VISAYAN PACKING CORP., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 53485 February 6, 1991 - PATRIA ESUERTE, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 72121 February 6, 1991 - RAFAEL PAGSUYUIN, ET AL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 75080 February 6, 1991 - CRISOSTOMO SUCALDITO, ET AL. v. JUAN MONTEJO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 76591 February 6, 1991 - PLANTERS PRODUCTS, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 77778 February 6, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RICARDO YAMBAO

  • G.R. No. 82193 February 6, 1991 - CARMEN BASCON TIBAJIA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 83208 February 6, 1991 - MANUEL CONCEPCION, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 89571 February 6, 1991 - FRANCISCO LIM TUPAS, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 89880 February 6, 1991 - EMMA ADRIANO BUSTAMANTE, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 90780 February 6, 1991 - RAYMUNDO ACENA v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 34386 February 7, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LUDOVICO C. DOCTOLERO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 48345 February 7, 1991 - TERESITA BELARMINO v. C.R. AYSON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 62380 February 7, 1991 - LUIS GAVIERES, ET AL. v. PRUDENCIO G. FALCIS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 78657-60 February 7, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FRANCISCO H. ESCANO, JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 82249 February 7, 1991 - WILTSHIRE FILE CO., INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 87051 February 7, 1991 - ESCO HALE SHOE COMPANY, INC., ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 90394-97 February 7, 1991 - HERMINIGILDO ILAS, ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 90664 February 7, 1991 - SABAS B. VILLENA v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 91029 February 7, 1991 - NORKIS DISTRIBUTORS, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 91334 February 7, 1991 - INVESTOR FINANCE CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 91478 February 7, 1991 - ROSITA PEÑA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 91670 February 7, 1991 - ALBERT NABUS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 91779 February 7, 1991 - GRAND FARMS, INC., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 95095 February 7, 1991 - UNITED COCONUT PLANTERS BANK v. LUIS R. REYES

  • G.R. No. 95522 February 7, 1991 - WHITE PLAINS ASSO., INC. v. GODOFREDO L. LEGASPI, ET AL.

  • A.C. No. 2490 February 7, 1991 - FULGENCIO A. NGAYAN, ET AL. v. FAUSTINO F. TUGADE

  • G.R. No. 78569 February 11, 1991 - EARTH MINERALS EXPLORATION, INC. v. CATALINO MACARAIG, JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 86505 February 11, 1991 - FOUNTAINHEAD INTERNATIONAL PHILIPPINES, INC., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 87550 February 11, 1991 - DIVINA J. VICTORIANO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 95016 February 11, 1991 - CONRADO C. LINDO v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 66401-03 February 13, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FRANCISCO MARTINADA, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. RTJ-89-395 February 13, 1991 - FRANCISCO A. VILLA v. SERGIO AMONOY

  • G.R. No. 55992 February 14, 1991 - LOLITA BAÑARES v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 74259 February 14, 1991 - GENEROSO P. CORPUZ v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. 83972 February 14, 1991 - EMILIANO RAMIREZ, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 85795 February 14, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NESTOR C. LAGOTA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 92649 February 14, 1991 - LEONOR BADUA, ET AL. v. CORDILLERA BODONG ADMINISTRATION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 94408 February 14, 1991 - EMILIANO CIMAFRANCA, JR. v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • A.C. No. 575 February 14, 1991 - MARCIANO JOSON v. GLORIA M. BALTAZAR

  • G.R. No. 74736 February 18, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BALTAZAR ALAN ALITAO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 76137 February 18, 1991 - FRANCISCO CAYENA v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 82471 February 18, 1991 - PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 83754 February 18, 1991 - TEODORO B. CRUZ, JR. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 84354 February 18, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GERARDO TERESO

  • G.R. No. 85588 February 18, 1991 - PHILSA INT’L. PLACEMENT AND SERVICES CORP., ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 88866 February 18, 1991 - METROPOLITAN BANK & TRUST COMPANY v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 50553 February 19, 1991 - NAZARIO VITA v. SOLEDAD MONTANANO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 51333 February 19, 1991 - RAMONA R. LOCSIN, ET AL. v. VICENTE P. VALENZUELA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 75282 February 19, 1991 - ARCHIPELAGO BUILDERS v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 79670 February 19, 1991 - ARTURO LIPATA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 79684 February 19, 1991 - DIRECTOR OF LANDS, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 85200 February 19, 1991 - ARTURO Q. SALIENTES v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 88401 February 19, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CESAR C. SEGWABEN

  • G.R. No. 91131 February 19, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROMEO SOLIAO

  • G.R. No. 91261 February 19, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. REY FRANCIS YAP TONGSON

  • G.R. No. 91777 February 19, 1991 - ANDRES MALIMATA v. EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 92140 February 19, 1991 - REYNALDO D. LOPEZ v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 93868 February 19, 1991 - ARDELIZA MEDENILLA v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 94054-57 February 19, 1991 - VICENTE LIM, SR., ET AL. v. NEMESIO S. FELIX, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 80821 February 21, 1991 - GREGORIO FAVOR v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 83896 February 22, 1991 - CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION v. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY

  • G.R. No. 82465 February 25, 1991 - ST. FRANCIS HIGH SCHOOL, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 85082 February 25, 1991 - PASTOR VALDEZ, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 91374 February 25, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOHN GABRIEL GAMBOA

  • G.R. No. 91461 February 25, 1991 - NORMAL HOLDINGS AND DEVELOPMENT CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 93711 February 25, 1991 - EMILY M. MAROHOMBSAR v. AHMAD E. ALONTO, JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 94961 February 25, 1991 - MARITA V.T. REYES, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 63480 February 26, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LUIS S. MISION

  • G.R. No. 87759 February 26, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MODESTO BELON

  • G.R. No. 91602 February 26, 1991 - SIMPLICIO C. GRIÑO, ET AL. v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 94595 February 26, 1991 - ROMAN CRUZ, JR. v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 55963 & 61045 February 27, 1991 - JOSE FONTANILLA, ET AL. v. INOCENCIO D. MALIAMAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 57490 February 27, 1991 - GLORIA F. BERIN, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 74613 February 27, 1991 - FIDEL CALALANG, ET AL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 78713 February 27, 1991 - CAILO DEFERIA, ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 79497 February 27, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DAVID CINCO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 82797 February 27, 1991 - GOOD EARTH EMPORIUM, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 83372 February 27, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARLON T. RUEDAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 89734 February 27, 1991 - MACARIA JOYA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 90173 February 27, 1991 - MANGGAGAWA NG KOMUNIKASYON SA PILIPINAS, ET AL. v. NLRC

  • G.R. No. 92305 February 27, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LOUIE EUGENIO

  • G.R. No. 92710 February 27, 1991 - CARLITO TULOD v. FIRST CITY LINE TRANSPORTATION COMPANY

  • G.R. Nos. 93530-36 February 27, 1991 - COCA-COLA BOTTLERS (PHILS.), INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.