ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™  
Main Index Law Library Philippine Laws, Statutes & Codes Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Jurisprudence
Prof. Joselito Guianan Chan's The Labor Code of the Philippines, Annotated Labor Standards & Social Legislation Volume I of a 3-Volume Series 2019 Edition (3rd Revised Edition)
 

 
Chan Robles Virtual Law Library
 









 

 
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

 
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

   
February-2011 Jurisprudence                 

  • [A.M. No. 2007-22-SC, February 01, 2011] RE: ANONYMOUS COMPLAINT AGAINST MS. HERMOGENA F. BAYANI FOR DISHONESTY.

  • [G.R. No. 159618 : February 01, 2011] BAYAN MUNA, AS REPRESENTED BY REP. SATUR OCAMPO, REP. CRISPIN BELTRAN, AND REP. LIZA L. MAZA, PETITIONER, VS. ALBERTO ROMULO, IN HIS CAPACITY AS EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, AND BLAS F. OPLE, IN HIS CAPACITY AS SECRETARY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS, RESPONDENTS.

  • [A.M. No. RTJ-00-1600* : February 01, 2011] VIVIAN T. DABU, ASSISTANT PROVINCIAL PROSECUTOR, COMPLAINANT, VS. EDUARDO RODEN E. KAPUNAN, PRESIDING JUDGE, BRANCH 51 AND ACTING JUDGE, BRANCH 52,+ MA. THERESA CORTEZ, LEILA O. GALO, BOTH COURT STENOGRAPHERS, SUZETTE O. TIONGCO, LEGAL RESEARCHER, ALL OF REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 51, GUAGUA, PAMPANGA, RESPONDENTS. [A.M. No. 01-3-138-RTC : February 01, 2011] RE: EVALUATION OF THE REPORT AND INVENTORY SUBMITTED BY EXECUTIVE JUDGE ROGELIO C. GONZALES, RTC, GUAGUA, PAMPANGA, ON ANNULMENT OF MARRIAGE CASES IN BRANCHES 49, 50, 51, 52 AND 53 OF THE GUAGUA REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

  • [G.R. No. 186045 : February 02, 2011] MACTAN-CEBU INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY, PETITIONER, VS. HEIRS OF ESTANISLAO MI—OZA, NAMELY: THE HEIRS OF FILOMENO T. MI—OZA, REPRESENTED BY LAUREANO M. MI—OZA; THE HEIRS OF PEDRO T. MI—OZA; AND THE HEIRS OF FLORENCIA T. MI—OZA, REPRESENTED BY ANTONIO M. URBIZTONDO, RESPONDENTS

  • [G.R. No. 185493 : February 02, 2011] LTC. ROBERTO K. GUILLERGAN (RET.), PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 179217 : February 02, 2011] METROPOLITAN WATERWORKS AND SEWERAGE SYSTEM, PETITIONER, VS. GABRIEL ADVINCULA, ET AL., RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 189476 : February 02, 2011] REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER, VS. JULIAN EDWARD EMERSON COSETENG-MAGPAYO (A.K.A. JULIAN EDWARD EMERSON MARQUEZ-LIM COSETENG), RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 170463 : February 02, 2011] THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM AND WINSTON F. GARCIA, IN HIS CAPACITY AS GSIS PRESIDENT AND GENERAL MANAGER, PETITIONERS, VS. ALBERT M. VELASCO AND MARIO I. MOLINA, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 172879 : February 02, 2011] ATTY. RICARDO B. BERMUDO, PETITIONER, VS. FERMINA TAYAG-ROXAS, RESPONDENT. [G.R. No. 173364] FERMINA TAYAG-ROXAS, PETITIONER, VS. HON. COURT OF APPEALS AND ATTY. RICARDO BERMUDO, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 176631 : February 02, 2011] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. AVELINO FELAN, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 159781 :February 02, 2011] PETER BEJARASCO, JR., PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 173575 : February 02, 2011] IMMACULATE CONCEPTION ACADEMY AND THE LATE DR. PAULO C. CAMPOS SUBSTITUTED BY HIS HEIRS, DR. JOSE PAULO E. CAMPOS, ATTY. PAULO E. CAMPOS, JR. AND DR. ENRIQUE E. CAMPOS,[1] PETITIONERS, VS. AMA COMPUTER COLLEGE, INCORPORATED, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 183719 : February 02, 2011] MARGARITA F. CASTRO, PETITIONER, VS. NAPOLEON A. MONSOD, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 184170 : February 02, 2011] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. JERWIN QUINTAL Y BEO, VICENTE BONGAT Y TARIMAN, FELIPE QUINTAL Y ABARQUEZ AND LARRY PANTI Y JIMENEZ, ACCUSED. VICENTE BONGAT Y TARIMAN, APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 165851 : February 02, 2011] MANUEL CATINDIG, REPRESENTED BY HIS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE EMILIANO CATINDIG-RODRIGO, PETITIONER, VS. AURORA IRENE VDA. DE MENESES, RESPONDENT. [ G.R. NO. 168875] SILVINO ROXAS, SR., REPRESENTED BY FELICISIMA VILLAFUERTE ROXAS, PETITIONER, VS. COURT OF APPEALS AND AURORA IRENE VDA. DE MENESES, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 173846 : February 02, 2011] JOSE MARCEL PANLILIO, ERLINDA PANLILIO, NICOLE MORRIS AND MARIO T. CRISTOBAL, PETITIONERS, VS. REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 51, CITY OF MANILA, REPRESENTED BY HON. PRESIDING JUDGE ANTONIO M. ROSALES; PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES; AND THE SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 169871 : February 02, 2011] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. JOSE N. MEDIADO, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 171238 : February 02, 2011] F.A.T. KEE COMPUTER SYSTEMS, INC., PETITIONER, VS. ONLINE NETWORKS INTERNATIONAL, INC., RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 172230 : February 02, 2011] LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER, VS. MAGIN FERRER, ANTONIO V. FERRER, AND RAMON V. FERRER, REPRESENTED BY THEIR ATTORNEY-IN-FACT, ATTY. RAFAEL VILLAROSA, RESPONDENTS. [G.R. NO. 179421] DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY NASSER C. PANGANDAMAN, PETITIONER, VS. ANTONIO V. FERRER AND RAMON V. FERRER, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 181827 : February 02, 2011] THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. JOSE GALVEZ Y BLANCA, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 165575 : February 02, 2011] ADELIA C. MENDOZA AND AS ATTORNEY-IN-FACT OF ALICE MALLETA, PETITIONERS, VS. UNITED COCONUT PLANTERS BANK, INC., RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 192500 : February 02, 2011] SPOUSES AMADO O. IBA√ĎEZ AND ESTHER A. RAFAEL-IBA√ĎEZ, PETITIONERS, VS. REGISTER OF DEEDS OF MANILA AND CAVITE AND PHILIPPINE VETERANS BANK (PVB), RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 167004 : February 07, 2011] DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER, VS. BEN P. MEDRANO AND PRIVATIZATION MANAGEMENT OFFICE [PMO], RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 167332 : February 07, 2011] FILIPINAS PALMOIL PROCESSING, INC. AND DENNIS T. VILLAREAL, PETITIONERS, VS. JOEL P. DEJAPA, REPRESENTED BY HIS ATTORNEY-IN-FACT MYRNA MANZANO, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 189724 : February 07, 2011] REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES, REGION IV-B, PETITIONER, VS. SPOUSES FLORENCIO DE CASTRO AND ROMELIA CALIBOSO DE CASTRO, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 190601 : February 07, 2011] SPOUSES LUIGI M. GUANIO AND ANNA HERNANDEZ-GUANIO, PETITIONERS, VS. MAKATI SHANGRI-LA HOTEL AND RESORT, INC., ALSO DOING BUSINESS UNDER THE NAME OF SHANGRI-LA HOTEL MANILA, RESPONDENT.

  • [A.M. No. RTJ-10-2220 (Formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 08-3053-RTJ), February 07 : 2011] PIO ANGELIA, COMPLAINANT, VS. JUDGE JESUS L. GRAGEDA, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 4, PANABO CITY RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 193184, February 07 : 2011] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. MICHAEL ANDRES Y TRINIDAD, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 182555, February 08 : 2011] LENIDO LUMANOG AND AUGUSTO SANTOS, PETITIONERS, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT. [G.R.NO. 185123] CESAR FORTUNA, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT. [G.R.NO. 187745]

  • [A.M. No. P-10-2810, February 08 : 2011] MANUEL P. CALAUNAN, COMPLAINANT, VS. REYNALDO B. MADOLARTA, SHERIFE IV, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 217, QUEZON CITY, RESPONDENT.

  • [A.M. No. 10-7-17-SC : February 08, 2011] IN THE MATTER OF THE CHARGES OF PLAGIARISM, ETC., AGAINST ASSOCIATE JUSTICE MARIANO C. DEL CASTILLO.

  • [G.R. No. 167219, February 08 : 2011] RUBEN REYNA AND LLOYD SORIA, PETITIONERS, VS. COMMISSION ON AUDIT, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 188608, February 09 : 2011] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. RONALDO MORALES Y FLORES ALIAS "RONNIE," AND RODOLFO FLORES Y MANGYAN ALIAS "RODING." DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS.

  • [G.R. No. 184215, February 09 : 2011] OCEANEERING CONTRACTORS (PHILS), INC., PETITIONER, VS. NESTOR N. BARRETTO, DOING BUSINESS AS N.N.B. LIGHTERAGE, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. Nos. 174730-37, February 09 : 2011] ROSALIO S. GALEOS, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT. [G.R. NOS. 174845-52] PAULINO S. ONG, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 182521, February 09 : 2011] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, VS. ERNESTO FRAGANTE Y AYUDA, APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 183628, February 09 : 2011] DANIEL T. SO, PETITIONER, VS. FOOD FEST LAND, INC. RESPONDENT [G.R. NO. 183670 ] FOOD FEST LAND, INC., PETITIONER, VS. DANIEL T. SO, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 173349, February 09 : 2011] SAMUEL U. LEE AND PAULINE LEE AND ASIATRUST DEVELOPMENT BANK, INC., PETITIONERS, VS. BANGKOK BANK PUBLIC COMPANY, LIMITED, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 168240, February 09 : 2011] AURORA B. GO, PETITIONER, VS. ELMER SUNBANUN,‚Éį GEORGIE S. TAN, DORIS SUNBANUN AND RICHARD SUNBANUN, RESPONDENTS.

  • [A.M. No. P-05-2095 [Formerly A.M. OCA IPI No. 05-2085-P], February 09 : 2011] BENIGNO B. REAS, COMPLAINANT, VS. CARLOS M. RELACION, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 191061, February 09 : 2011] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, VS. ROSELLE SANTIAGO Y PABALINAS, APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 191061, February 09 : 2011] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, VS. ROSELLE SANTIAGO Y PABALINAS, APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 191061, February 09 : 2011] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, VS. ROSELLE SANTIAGO Y PABALINAS, APPELLANT.

  • [A.M. No. MTJ-08-1714 [Formerly A.M. OCA IPI No. 08-2016-MTJ], February 09 : 2011] DANIEL G. SEVILLA, COMPLAINANT, VS. JUDGE FRANCISCO S. LINDO, METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 55, MALABON CITY, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 168770, February 09 : 2011] ANUNCIACION VDA. DE OUANO, MARIO P. OUANO, LETICIA OUANO ARNAIZ, AND CIELO OUANO MARTINEZ, PETITIONERS, VS. THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, THE MACTAN-CEBU INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY, AND THE REGISTER OF DEEDS FOR THE CITY OF CEBU, RESPONDENTS. [G.R. NO. 168812] MACTAN-CEBU INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY (MCIAA), PETITIONER, VS. RICARDO L. INOCIAN, IN HIS PERSONAL CAPACITY AND AS ATTORNEY-IN-FACT OF OLYMPIA E. ESTEVES, EMILIA E. BACALLA, RESTITUTA E. MONTANA, AND RAUL L. INOCIAN; AND ALETHA SUICO MAGAT, IN HER PERSONAL CAPACITY AND AS ATTORNEY-IN-FACT OF PHILIP M. SUICO, DORIS S. DELA CRUZ, JAMES M. SUICO, EDWARD M. SUICO, ROSELYN SUICO-LAWSIN, REX M. SUICO, KHARLA SUICO-GUTIERREZ, ALBERT CHIONGBIAN, AND JOHNNY CHAN, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 165381, February 09 : 2011] NELSON A. CULILI, PETITIONER, VS. EASTERN TELECOMMUNICATIONS PHILIPPINES, INC., SALVADOR HIZON (PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER), EMILIANO JURADO (CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD), VIRGILIO GARCIA (VICE PRESIDENT) AND STELLA GARCIA (ASSISTANT VICE PRESIDENT), RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 177145, February 09 : 2011] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. JOEY TORIAGA, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 179476, February 09 : 2011] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. RUEL TUY , ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • [G. R. No. 172321, February 09 : 2011] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. RENATO DADULLA Y CAPANAS, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 155227-28, February 09 : 2011] EMILIANA G. PE√ĎA, AMELIA C. MAR, AND CARMEN REYES, PETITIONERS, VS. SPOUSES ARMANDO TOLENTINO AND LETICIA TOLENTINO, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 159615, February 09 : 2011] SPOUSES VICTOR ONG AND GRACE TIU ONG, PETITIONERS, VS. PREMIER DEVELOPMENT BANK, THE PROVINCIAL SHERIFF OF RIZAL GRACE S. BELVIS AND DEPUTY SHERIFF VICTOR S. STA. ANA , RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 170459, February 09 : 2011] REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER, VS. CANDIDO, DEMETILA, JESUS, ANGELITO, AND TERESITA, ALL SURNAMED VERGEL DE DIOS, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 170459, February 09 : 2011] REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER, VS. CANDIDO, DEMETILA, JESUS, ANGELITO, AND TERESITA, ALL SURNAMED VERGEL DE DIOS, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 170979, February 09 : 2011] JUDITH YU, PETITIONER, VS. HON. ROSA SAMSON-TATAD, PRESIDING JUDGE, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, QUEZON CITY, BRANCH 105, AND THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 189580, February 09 : 2011] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, VS. ALVIN DEL ROSARIO, APPELLANT.

  • [A.M. No. RTJ-11-2262 [Formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 08-3056-RTJ], February 09 : 2011] GAUDENCIO B. PANTILO III, COMPLAINANT, VS. JUDGE VICTOR A. CANOY, RESPONDENT.

  • [A.M. No. MTJ-09-1737, February 09 : 2011] LYDELLE L. CONQUILLA, COMPLAINANT, VS. JUDGE LAURO G. BERNARDO, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT, BOCAUE, BULACAN RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 180462, February 09 : 2011] SOUTH PACIFIC SUGAR CORPORATION AND SOUTH EAST ASIA SUGAR MILL CORPORATION, PETITIONERS, VS. COURT OF APPEALS AND SUGAR REGULATORY ADMINISTRATION, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 179641, February 09 : 2011] DOLORITA C. BEATINGO, PETITIONER, VS. LILIA BU GASIS, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 177407, February 09 : 2011] RICO ROMMEL ATIENZA, PETITIONER, VS. BOARD OF MEDICINE AND EDITHA SIOSON, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 177407, February 09 : 2011] RICO ROMMEL ATIENZA, PETITIONER, VS. BOARD OF MEDICINE AND EDITHA SIOSON, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 188802, February 14 : 2011] REVELINA LIMSON, PETITIONER, VS. WACK WACK CONDOMINIUM CORPORATION, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 175514, February 14 : 2011] PHILIPPINE BANK OF COMMUNICATIONS, PETITIONER, VS. SPOUSES JOSE C. GO AND ELVY T. GO, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 174104, February 14 : 2011] INSURANCE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. SPOUSES VIDAL S. GREGORIO AND JULITA GREGORIO, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 183906, February 14 : 2011] AFP MUTUAL BENEFIT ASSOCIATION, INC., PETITIONER, VS. REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, MARIKINA CITY, BRANCH 193 AND SOLID HOMES, INC., RESPONDENTS

  • [G.R. No. 188487, February 14 : 2011] VAN D. LUSPO, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT. [G.R. NO. 188541] SUPT. ARTURO H. MONTANO AND MARGARITA TUGAOEN, PETITIONERS, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT. [G.R. NO. 188556] C/INSP. SALVADOR C. DURAN, SR., PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 172203, February 14 : 2011] DIONISIO LOPEZ Y ABERASTURI, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES AND SALVADOR G. ESCALANTE, JR., RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 171165, February 14 : 2011] CAROLINA HERNANDEZ-NIEVERA, DEMETRIO P. HERNANDEZ, JR., AND MARGARITA H. MALVAR, PETITIONERS, VS. WILFREDO HERNANDEZ, HOME INSURANCE AND GUARANTY CORPORATION, PROJECT MOVERS REALTY AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, MARIO P. VILLAMOR AND LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 193459, February 15 : 2011] MA. MERCEDITAS N. GUTIERREZ PETITIONER, VS. THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES COMMITTEE ON JUSTICE, RISA HONTIVEROS-BARAQUEL, DANILO D. LIM, FELIPE PESTA√ĎO, EVELYN PESTA√ĎO, RENATO M. REYES, JR., SECRETARY GENERAL OF BAGONG ALYANSANG MAKABAYAN (BAYAN); MOTHER MARY JOHN MANANZAN, CO-CHAIRPERSON OF PAGBABAGO; DANILO RAMOS, SECRETARY-GENERAL OF KILUSANG MAGBUBUKID NG PILIPINAS (KMP); ATTY. EDRE OLALIA, ACTING SECRETARY GENERAL OF THE NATIONAL UNION OF PEOPLE'S LAWYERS (NUPL); FERDINAND R. GAITE, CHAIRPERSON, CONFEDERATION FOR UNITY, RECOGNITION AND ADVANCEMENT OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES (COURAGE); AND JAMES TERRY RIDON OF THE LEAGUE OF FILIPINO STUDENTS (LFS), RESPONDENTS. FELICIANO BELMONTE, JR., RESPONDENT-INTERVENOR.

  • [G.R. No. 176951, February 15 : 2011] LEAGUE OF CITIES OF THE PHILIPPINES (LCP), REPRESENTED BY LCP NATIONAL PRESIDENT JERRY P. TRE√ĎAS; CITY OF CALBAYOG, REPRESENTED BY MAYOR MEL SENEN S. SARMIENTO; AND JERRY P. TRE√ĎAS, IN HIS PERSONAL CAPACITY AS TAXPAYER, PETITIONERS, VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS; MUNICIPALITY OF BAYBAY, PROVINCE OF LEYTE; MUNICIPALITY OF BOGO, PROVINCE OF CEBU; MUNICIPALITY OF CATBALOGAN, PROVINCE OF WESTERN SAMAR; MUNICIPALITY OF TANDAG, PROVINCE OF SURIGAO DEL SUR; MUNICIPALITY OF BORONGAN, PROVINCE OF EASTERN SAMAR; AND MUNICIPALITY OF TAYABAS, PROVINCE OF QUEZON, RESPONDENTS. [G.R. NO. 177499] LEAGUE OF CITIES OF THE PHILIPPINES (LCP), REPRESENTED BY LCP NATIONAL PRESIDENT JERRY P. TRE√ĎAS; CITY OF CALBAYOG, REPRESENTED BY MAYOR MEL SENEN S. SARMIENTO; AND JERRY P. TRE√ĎAS, IN HIS PERSONAL CAPACITY AS TAXPAYER, PETITIONERS, VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS; MUNICIPALITY OF LAMITAN, PROVINCE OF BASILAN; MUNICIPALITY OF TABUK, PROVINCE OF KALINGA; MUNICIPALITY OF BAYUGAN, PROVINCE OF AGUSAN DEL SUR; MUNICIPALITY OF BATAC, PROVINCE OF ILOCOS NORTE; MUNICIPALITY OF MATI, PROVINCE OF DAVAO ORIENTAL; AND MUNICIPALITY OF GUIHULNGAN, PROVINCE OF NEGROS ORIENTAL, RESPONDENTS. [G.R. NO. 178056] LEAGUE OF CITIES OF THE PHILIPPINES (LCP), REPRESENTED BY LCP NATIONAL PRESIDENT JERRY P. TRE√ĎAS; CITY OF CALBAYOG, REPRESENTED BY MAYOR MEL SENEN S. SARMIENTO; AND JERRY P. TRE√ĎAS, IN HIS PERSONAL CAPACITY AS TAXPAYER, PETITIONERS, VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS; MUNICIPALITY OF CABADBARAN, PROVINCE OF AGUSAN DEL NORTE; MUNICIPALITY OF CARCAR, PROVINCE OF CEBU; MUNICIPALITY OF EL SALVADOR, PROVINCE OF MISAMIS ORIENTAL; MUNICIPALITY OF NAGA, CEBU; AND DEPARTMENT OF BUDGET AND MANAGEMENT, RESPONDENTS.

  • [A.M. No. MTJ-08-1710 [Formerly A.M. OCA IPI No. 08-2029-MTJ], February 15 : 2011] RENE C. RICABLANCA, COMPLAINANT, VS. JUDGE HECTOR B. BARILLO, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 153690, February 15 : 2011] DAVID LU, PETITIONER, VS. PATERNO LU YM, SR., PATERNO LU YM, JR., VICTOR LU YM, JOHN LU YM, KELLY LU YM, AND LUDO & LUYM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, RESPONDENTS. [G.R. NO. 157381] PATERNO LU YM, SR., PATERNO LU YM, JR., VICTOR LU YM, JOHN LU YM, KELLY LU YM, AND LUDO & LUYM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, PETITIONERS, VS. DAVID LU, RESPONDENT. [G.R. NO. 170889] JOHN LU YM AND LUDO & LUYM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, PETITIONERS, VS. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS OF CEBU CITY (FORMER TWENTIETH DIVISION), DAVID LU, ROSA GO, SILVANO LUDO & CL CORPORATION, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. Nos. 171947-48, February 15 : 2011] METROPOLITAN MANILA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, CULTURE AND SPORTS,[1] DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS AND HIGHWAYS, DEPARTMENT OF BUDGET AND MANAGEMENT, PHILIPPINE COAST GUARD, PHILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE MARITIME GROUP, AND DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT, PETITIONERS, VS. CONCERNED RESIDENTS OF MANILA BAY, REPRESENTED AND JOINED BY DIVINA V. ILAS, SABINIANO ALBARRACIN, MANUEL SANTOS, JR., DINAH DELA PE√ĎA, PAUL DENNIS QUINTERO, MA. VICTORIA LLENOS, DONNA CALOZA, FATIMA QUITAIN, VENICE SEGARRA, FRITZIE TANGKIA, SARAH JOELLE LINTAG, HANNIBAL AUGUSTUS BOBIS, FELIMON SANTIAGUEL, AND JAIME AGUSTIN R. OPOSA, RESPONDENTS.

  • [A.M. No. RTJ-11-2266 [FORMERLY A.M. OCA IPI NO. 09-3320-RTJ], February 15 : 2011] JOSEPHINE JAZMINES TAN, COMPLAINANT, VS. JUDGE SIBANAH E. USMAN, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 29, CATBALOGAN, SAMAR, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 166495, February 16 : 2011] ROQUE C. FACURA AND EDUARDO F. TUASON, PETITIONERS, VS. COURT OF APPEALS, RODOLFO S. DE JESUS AND EDELWINA DG. PARUNGAO, RESPONDENTS. [G.R. No. 184129] RODOLFO S. DE JESUS, PETITIONER, VS. OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, EDUARDO F. TUASON, LOCAL WATER UTILITIES ADMINISTRATION (LWUA), REPRESENTED BY ITS NEW ADMINISTRATOR ORLANDO C. HONDRADE, RESPONDENTS. [G.R. No. 184263] OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, PETITIONER, VS. EDELWINA DG. PARUNGAO, AND THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS (FORMER 7TH DIVISION), RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 188902, February 16 : 2011] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, VS. ROBERTO LOPEZ Y CABAL, APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 182070, February 16 : 2011] E.G & I. CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION AND EDSEL GALEOS, PETITIONERS, VS. ANANIAS P. SATO, NILO BERDIN, ROMEO M. LACIDA, JR., AND HEIRS OF ANECITO S. PARANTAR, SR., NAMELY: YVONNE, KIMBERLY MAE, MARYKRIS, ANECITO, JR., AND JOHN BRYAN, ALL SURNAMED PARANTAR, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 184007, February 16 : 2011] PAQUITO V. ANDO, PETITIONER, VS. ANDRESITO Y. CAMPO, ET AL., RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 171328, February 16 : 2011] LYZAH SY FRANCO, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT. [G.R. NO. 171335 ] STEVE BESARIO, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

  • [A.M. No. 09-7-284-RTC, February 16 : 2011] RE: REPORT ON THE JUDICIAL AUDIT CONDUCTED IN THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT - BRANCH 56, MANDAUE CITY, CEBU.

  • [G.R. No. 192251, February 16 : 2011] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. BARANGAY CAPTAIN TONY TOMAS, SR., BENEDICTO DOCTOR, AND NESTOR GATCHALIAN, ACCUSED-APPELLANTS.

  • [G.R. No. 183390, February 16 : 2011] PLASTIMER INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION AND TEO KEE BIN, PETITIONERS, VS. NATALIA C. GOPO, KLEENIA R. VELEZ, FILEDELFA T. AMPARADO, MIGNON H. JOSEPH, AMELIA L. CANDA, MARISSA D. LABUNOS, MELANIE T. CAYABYAB, MA. CORAZON DELA CRUZ, AND LUZVIMINDA CABASA, RESPONDENTS.

  • [A.M. No. RTJ-11-2272 (Formerly A.M. OCA IPI No. 07-2559-RTJ), February 16 : 2011] MARCIANO ALCARAZ, COMPLAINANT, VS. JUDGE FATIMA GONZALES-ASDALA, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 87, QUEZON CITY, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 189328, February 21 : 2011] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, VS. ARNOLD PELIS, APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. Nos. 182539-40, February 21 : 2011] ANTONIO Y. DE JESUS, SR., ANATOLIO A. ANG AND MARTINA S. APIGO, PETITIONERS, VS. SANDIGANBAYAN-FOURTH DIVISION AND PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 181201, February 21 : 2011] UNIVERSITY OF MINDANAO, INC., DR. GUILLERMO P. TORRES, JR., ATTY. VICTOR NICASIO P. TORRES, NANCY C. TE ENG FO, FE AZUCENA MARCELINO, EVANGELINE F. MAGALLANES, CARMENCITA E. VIDAMO, CARMICHAEL E. VIDAMO, ANTONIO M. PILPIL, SATURNINO PETALCORIN, REYNALDO M. PETALCORIN, LILIAN M. PETALCORIN-CASTILLO, MARY ANN M. PETALCORIN-RAS, VITALIANO MALAYO, JR., NERI FILIPINAS, NATIVIDAD MIRANDA, ANTONIO N. FERRER, JR., PETITIONERS, VS. PHILIPPINE DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 188323, February 21 : 2011] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, VS. CHARLIE ABA√ĎO Y CA√ĎARES, APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 188108, February 21 : 2011] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, VS. EVILIO MILAGROSA, APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 189294, February 21 : 2011] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, VS. HERMINIANO MARZAN Y OLONAN, APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. Nos. 190580-81, February 21 : 2011] LIBERATO M. CARABEO, PETITIONER, VS. THE HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN (FOURTH DIVISION) AND PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENTS.

  • [A.C. No. 5834 (formerly CBD-01-861), February 22 : 2011] TERESITA D. SANTECO, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. LUNA B. AVANCE, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 192793, February 22 : 2011] FESTO R. GALANG, JR., PETITIONER, VS. HON. RAMIRO R. GERONIMO, AS PRESIDING JUDGE OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF ROMBLON, BRANCH 81; AND NICASIO M. RAMOS, RESPONDENTS.

  • [A.M. No. MTJ-01-1362(formerly A.M. No. 01-2-49-RTC), February 22 : 2011] JUDGE NAPOLEON E. INOTURAN, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 133, MAKATI CITY, VS. JUDGE MANUEL Q. LIMSIACO, JR., MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURT, VALLADOLID, SAN ENRIQUE-PULUPANDAN, NEGROS OCCIDENTAL, RESPONDENT. A.M. No. MTJ-11-1785(formerly A.M. OCA IPI No. 07-1945-MTJ) SANCHO E. GUINANAO, COMPLAINANT, VS. JUDGE MANUEL Q. LIMSIACO, JR., MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURT, VALLADOLID, SAN ENRIQUE-PULUPANDAN, NEGROS OCCIDENTAL, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 183528, February 23 : 2011] PACIFIC UNION INSURANCE COMPANY, PETITIONER, VS. CONCEPTS & SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT, INCORPORATED AND COURT OF APPEALS (FIFTEENTH DIVISION), RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 184274, February 23 : 2011] MARK SOLEDAD Y CRISTOBAL, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 189281, February 23 : 2011] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, VS. ROMEO ANCHES, APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 186271, February 23 : 2011] CHATEAU DE BAIE CONDOMINIUM CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. SPS. RAYMOND AND MA. ROSARIO MORENO, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 180257, February 23 : 2011] EUSEBIO GONZALES, PETITIONER, VS. PHILIPPINE COMMERCIAL AND INTERNATIONAL BANK, EDNA OCAMPO, AND ROBERTO NOCEDA, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 166109, February 23 : 2011] EXODUS INTERNATIONAL CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION AND ANTONIO P. JAVALERA, PETITIONERS, VS. GUILLERMO BISCOCHO, FERNANDO PEREDA, FERDINAND MARIANO, GREGORIO BELLITA AND MIGUEL BOBILLO, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 161282, February 23 : 2011] FGU INSURANCE CORPORATION (NOW BPI/MS INSURANCE CORPORATION), PETITIONER, VS. REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF MAKATI CITY, BRANCH 66, AND G.P. SARMIENTO TRUCKING CORPORATION, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 184879, February 23 : 2011] REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES (DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND COMMUNICATIONS), PETITIONER, VS. CITY OF MANDALUYONG, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 187208, February 23 : 2011] CEFERINA LOPEZ TAN PETITIONER, VS. SPOUSES APOLINAR P. ANTAZO AND GENOVEVA O. ANTAZO RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 177190, February 23 : 2011] LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER, VS. HON. ERNESTO P. PAGAYATAN, IN HIS CAPACITY AS PRESIDING JUDGE OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 46, SAN JOSE, OCCIDENTAL MINDORO; AND JOSEFINA S. LUBRICA, IN HER CAPACITY AS ASSIGNEE OF FEDERICO SUNTAY, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 186614, February 23 : 2011] NATIONWIDE SECURITY AND ALLIED SERVICES, INC., PETITIONER, VS. RONALD P. VALDERAMA, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 187256, February 23 : 2011] CONSTANCIO F. MENDOZA AND SANGGUNIANG BARANGAY OF BALATASAN, BULALACAO, ORIENTAL MINDORO, PETITIONERS, VS. MAYOR ENRILO VILLAS AND BRGY. KAGAWAD LIWANAG HERATO AND MARLON DE CASTRO, MANAGER, PINAMALAYAN BRANCH, LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 178060, February 23 : 2011] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, VS. ROMEO DANSICO Y MONAY A.K.A. "LAMYAK" AND AUGUSTO CUADRA Y ENRIQUEZ, APPELLANTS.

  • [G.R. No. 181041, February 23 : 2011] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, VS. FABIAN G. ROMERO, APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 184922, February 23 : 2011] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, VS. PORFERIO MASAGCA, JR. Y PADILLA, APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 157547, February 23 : 2011] HEIRS OF EDUARDO SIMON, PETITIONERS, VS. ELVIN* CHAN AND THE COURT OF APPEALS, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 178544, February 23 : 2011] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, VS. MANUEL PALOMA Y ESPINOSA, APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 187077, February 23 : 2011] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. ALEX CONDES Y GUANZON, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 188630, February 23 : 2011] FILOMENA L. VILLANUEVA, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 182332, February 23 : 2011] MILESTONE FARMS, INC., PETITIONER, VS. OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 171726, February 23 : 2011] VICENTE YU CHANG AND SOLEDAD YU CHANG, PETITIONERS, VS. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 169754, February 23 : 2011] LEGEND INTERNATIONAL RESORTS LIMITED, PETITIONER, VS. KILUSANG MANGGAGAWA NG LEGENDA (KML- INDEPENDENT), RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 156448, February 23 : 2011] SPS. MOISES AND CLEMENCIA ANDRADA, PETITIONERS, VS. PILHINO SALES CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, JOJO S. SAET, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 159402, February 23 : 2011] AIR TRANSPORTATION OFFICE, PETITIONER, VS. SPOUSES DAVID* AND ELISEA RAMOS, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 179242, February 23 : 2011] AVELINA F. SAGUN, PETITIONER, VS. SUNACE INTERNATIONAL MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC., RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 165617, February 25 : 2011] SUPREME TRANSLINER, INC., MOISES C. ALVAREZ AND PAULITA S. ALVAREZ, PETITIONERS, VS. BPI FAMILY SAVINGS BANK, INC., RESPONDENT. [G.R. No. 165837] BPI FAMILY SAVINGS BANK, INC., PETITIONER, VS. SUPREME TRANSLINER, INC., MOISES C. ALVAREZ AND PAULITA S. ALVAREZ, RESPONDENTS.

  • [A.M. No. P-07-2325 (Formerly A.M. No. 06-3-208-RTC), February 28 : 2011] OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. ROSARIO E. GASPAR, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 2, BALANGA CITY, BATAAN, RESPONDENT.

  •  





     
     

    [G.R. No. 175514, February 14 : 2011]   PHILIPPINE BANK OF COMMUNICATIONS, PETITIONER, VS. SPOUSES JOSE C. GO AND ELVY T. GO, RESPONDENTS.

     
    SECOND DIVISION

    [G.R. No. 175514, February 14 : 2011]

    PHILIPPINE BANK OF COMMUNICATIONS, PETITIONER, VS. SPOUSES JOSE C. GO AND ELVY T. GO, RESPONDENTS.

    D E C I S I O N


    MENDOZA, J.:

    This is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 filed by petitioner Philippine Bank of Communications (PBCom) seeking to set aside the July 28, 2006 Decision,[1] and the November 27, 2006 Resolution[2] of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA G.R. CV No. 77714. The CA decision reversed and set aside the January 25, 2002 Decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 42, Manila (RTC), which granted the motion for summary judgment and rendered judgment on the basis of the pleadings and attached documents.

    THE FACTS

    On September 30, 1999, respondent Jose C. Go (Go) obtained two loans from PBCom, evidenced by two promissory notes, embodying his commitment to pay P17,982,222.22 for the first loan, and P80 million for the second loan, within a ten-year period from September 30, 1999 to September 30, 2009.[3]

    To secure the two loans, Go executed two (2) pledge agreements, both dated September 29, 1999, covering shares of stock in Ever Gotesco Resources and Holdings, Inc. The first pledge, valued at P27,827,122.22, was to secure payment of the first loan, while the second pledge, valued at P70,155,100.00, was to secure the second loan.[4]

    Two years later, however, the market value of the said shares of stock plunged to less than P0.04 per share.  Thus, PBCom, as pledgee, notified Go in writing on June 15, 2001, that it was renouncing the pledge agreements.[5]

    Later, PBCom filed before the RTC a complaint[6] for sum of money with prayer for a writ of preliminary attachment against Go and his wife, Elvy T. Go (Spouses Go), docketed as Civil Case No. 01-101190.  PBCom alleged that Spouses Go defaulted on the two (2) promissory notes, having paid only three (3) installments on interest payments--covering the months of September, November and December 1999. Consequently, the entire balance of the obligations of Go became immediately due and demandable. PBCom made repeated demands upon Spouses Go for the payment of said obligations, but the couple imposed conditions on the payment, such as the lifting of garnishment effected by the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP) on Go's accounts.[7]

    Spouses Go filed their Answer with Counterclaim[8] denying the material allegations in the complaint and stating, among other matters, that:

    8. The promissory note referred to in the complaint expressly state that the loan obligation is payable within the period of ten (10) years. Thus, from the execution date of September 30, 1999, its due date falls on September 30, 2009 (and not 2001 as erroneously stated in the complaint). Thus, prior to September 30, 2009, the loan obligations cannot be deemed due and demandable.

    In conditional obligations, the acquisition of rights, as well as the extinguishment or loss of those already acquired, shall depend upon the happening of the event which constitutes the condition. (Article 1181, New Civil Code)

    9. Contrary to the plaintiff's proferrence, defendant Jose C. Go had made substantial payments in terms of his monthly payments. There is, therefore, a need to do some accounting works (sic) to reconcile the records of both parties.

    10. While demand is a necessary requirement to consider the defendant to be in delay/default, such has not been complied with by the plaintiff since the former is not aware of any demand made to him by the latter for the settlement of the whole obligation.

    11. Undeniably, at the time the pledge of the shares of stock were executed, their total value is more than the amount of the loan or at the very least, equal to it. Thus, plaintiff was fully secured insofar as its exposure is concerned.

    12. And even assuming without conceding, that the present value of said shares x x x went down, it cannot be considered as something permanent since the prices of stocks in the market either increases (sic) or decreases (sic) depending on the market forces. Thus, it is highly speculative for the plaintiff to consider said shares to have suffered tremendous decrease in its value. More so, it is unfair for the plaintiff to renounce or abandon the pledge agreements.

    On September 28, 2001, PBCom filed a verified motion for summary judgment[9] anchored on the following grounds:

    I. MATERIAL AVERMENTS OF THE COMPLAINT ADMITTED BY DEFENDANT-SPOUSES IN THEIR ANSWER TO OBVIATE THE NECESSITY OF TRIAL

    II. NO REAL DEFENSES AND NO GENUINE ISSUES AS TO ANY MATERIAL FACT WERE TENDERED BY THE DEFENDANT-SPOUSES IN THEIR ANSWER

    III. PLANTIFF'S CAUSES OF ACTIONS ARE SUPPORTED BY VOLUNTARY ADMISSIONS AND AUTHENTIC DOCUMENTS WHICH MAY NOT BE CONTRADICTED.[10]

    PBCom contended that the Answer interposed no specific denials on the material averments in paragraphs 8 to 11 of the complaint such as the fact of default, the entire amount being already due and demandable by reason of default, and the fact that the bank had made repeated demands for the payment of the obligations.[11]

    Spouses Go opposed the motion for summary judgment arguing that they had tendered genuine factual issues calling for the presentation of evidence.[12]

    The RTC granted PBCom's motion in its Judgment[13] dated January 25, 2002, the dispositive portion of which states:

    WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, judgment is rendered for the plaintiff and against the defendants ordering them to pay plaintiff jointly and severally the following:

    1. The total amount of P117,567,779.75, plus interests and penalties as stipulated in the two promissory notes;
    2. A sum equivalent to 10% of the amount involved in this case, by way of attorney's fees; and
    3. The costs of suit.
    SO ORDERED.[14]

    Spouses Go moved for a reconsideration but the motion was denied in an order[15] dated March 20, 2002.

    RULING OF THE COURT OF APPEALS
    center>

    In its Decision dated July 28, 2006, the CA reversed and set aside the assailed judgment of the RTC, denied PBCom's motion for summary judgment, and ordered the remand of the records to the court of origin for trial on the merits.  The dispositive portion of the decision states:

    WHEREFORE, premises considered, the assailed judgment of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 42 of Manila in Civil Case No. 01-101190 is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE, and a new one entered denying plaintiff-appellee's motion for summary judgment. Accordingly, the records of the case are hereby remanded to the court of origin for trial on the merits.

    SO ORDERED.[16]

    The CA could not agree with the conclusion of the RTC that Spouses Go admitted paragraphs 3, 4 and 7 of the complaint.  It found the supposed admission to be insufficient to justify a rendition of summary judgment in the case for sum of money, since there were other allegations  and defenses put up by Spouses Go in their Answer which raised genuine issues on the material facts in the action.[17]

    The CA agreed with Spouses Go that paragraphs 3 and 4 of the complaint merely dwelt on the fact that a contract of loan was entered into by the parties, while paragraph 7 simply emphasized the terms of the promissory notes executed by Go in favor of PBCom.  The fact of default, the amount of the outstanding obligation, and the existence of a prior demand, which were all material to PBCom's claim, were "hardly admitted"[18] by Spouses Go in their Answer and were, in fact, effectively questioned in the other allegations in the Answer.[19]

    PBCom's motion for reconsideration was denied in a resolution[20] dated November 27, 2006.

    Thus, this petition for review.

    THE ISSUES

    I

    WHETHER THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED OR ACTED IN GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK, OR EXCESS OF JURISDICTION IN RULING THAT THERE EXISTS A GENUINE ISSUE AS TO MATERIAL FACTS IN THE ACTION IN SPITE OF THE UNEQUIVOCAL ADMISSIONS MADE IN THE PLEADINGS BY RESPONDENTS; AND

    II

    WHETHER THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED OR ACTED IN GRAVE ABUSE OF JURISDICTION [DISCRETION] IN HOLDING THAT ISSUES WERE RAISED ABOUT THE FACT OF DEFAULT, THE AMOUNT OF THE OBLIGATION, AND THE EXISTENCE OF PRIOR DEMAND, EVEN WHEN THE PLEADING CLEARLY POINTS TO THE CONTRARY.

    Petitioner PBCom's Position:
    Summary judgment was proper,
    as there were no genuine issues
    raised as to any material fact
    .


    PBCom argues that the material averments in the complaint categorically admitted by Spouses Go obviated the necessity of trial. In their Answer, Spouses Go admitted the allegations in paragraphs 3 and 4 of the Complaint pertaining to the security for the loans and the due execution of the promissory notes,[21] and those in paragraph 7 which set forth the acceleration clauses in the promissory note.  Their denial of paragraph 5 of the Complaint pertaining to the Schedules of Payment for the liquidation of the two promissory notes did not constitute a specific denial required by the Rules.[22]

    Even in the Comment[23] of Spouses Go, the clear, categorical and unequivocal admission of paragraphs 3, 4, and 7 of the Complaint had been conceded.[24]

    PBCom faults the CA for having formulated non-existent issues pertaining to the fact of default, the amount of outstanding obligation and the existence of prior demand, none of which is borne by the pleadings or the records.[25]

    The Spouses Go, PBCom argues, cannot negate or override the legal effect of the acceleration clauses embodied in each of the two promissory notes executed by Go. Moreover, the non-payment of arrearages constituting default was admitted by Go in his letters to PBCom dated March 3 and April 7, 2000, respectively.[26] Therefore, by such default, they have lost the benefit of the period in their favor, pursuant to Article 1198[27] of the Civil Code.

    Further, PBCom claims that its causes of action are supported by authentic documents and voluntary admissions which cannot be contradicted.  It cites the March 3 and April 7, 2000 letters of  Go requesting deferment of interest payments on his past due loan obligations to PBCom, as his assets had been placed under attachment in a case filed by the BSP.[28] PBCom emphasizes that the said letters, in addition to its letters of demand duly acknowledged and received by Go, negated their claim that they were not aware of any demand having been made.[29]

    Respondent spouses' position:
    Summary judgment was not proper
    .


    The core contention of Spouses Go is that summary judgment was not proper under the attendant circumstances, as there exist genuine issues with respect to the fact of default, the amount of the outstanding obligation, and the existence of prior demand, which were duly questioned in the special and affirmative defenses set forth in the Answer.  Spouses Go agree with the CA that the admissions in the pleadings pertained to the highlight of the terms of the contract.  Such admissions merely recognized the existence of the contract of loan and emphasized its terms and conditions.[30] Moreover, although they admitted paragraphs 3, 4, and 7, the special and affirmative defenses contained in the Answer tendered genuine issues which could only be resolved in a full-blown trial.[31]

    On the matter of specific denial, Spouses Go posit that the Court decisions cited by PBCom[32] do not apply on all fours in this case. Moreover, the substance of the repayment schedule was not set forth in the complaint. It, therefore, follows that the act of attaching copies to the complaint is insufficient to secure an implied admission.  Assuming arguendo that it was impliedly admitted, the existence of said schedule and the promissory notes would not immediately make private respondents liable for the amount claimed by PBCom.[33] Before respondents may be held liable, it must be established, first, that they indeed defaulted; and second, that the obligations has remained outstanding.[34]

    Spouses Go also state that although they admitted paragraphs 3, 4 and 7 of the Complaint, the fact of default, the amount of outstanding obligation and the existence of prior demand were fully questioned in the special and affirmative defenses.[35]

    RULING OF THE COURT

    The Court agrees with the CA that "[t]he supposed admission of defendants-appellants on the x x x allegations in the complaint is clearly not sufficient to justify the rendition of summary judgment in the case for sum of money, considering that there are other allegations embodied and defenses raised by the defendants-appellants in their answer which raise a genuine issue as to the material facts in the action."[36]

    The CA correctly ruled that there exist genuine issues as to three material facts, which have to be addressed during trial: first, the fact of default; second, the amount of the outstanding obligation, and third, the existence of prior demand.

    Under the Rules, following the filing of pleadings, if, on motion of a party and after hearing, 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,"[37] summary judgment may be rendered.  This rule was expounded in Asian Construction and Development Corporation v. Philippine Commercial International Bank,[38] where it was written:

    Under Rule 35 of the 1997 Rules of Procedure, as amended, except as to the amount of damages, when there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law, summary judgment may be allowed.[39] Summary or accelerated judgment is a procedural technique aimed at weeding out sham claims or defenses at an early stage of litigation thereby avoiding the expense and loss of time involved in a trial.[40]

    Under the Rules, summary judgment is appropriate when there are no genuine issues of fact which call for the presentation of evidence in a full-blown trial. Even if on their face the pleadings appear to raise issues, when the affidavits, depositions and admissions show that such issues are not genuine, then summary judgment as prescribed by the Rules must ensue as a matter of law. The determinative factor, therefore, in a motion for summary judgment, is the presence or absence of a genuine issue as to any material fact.

    A "genuine issue" is an issue of fact which requires the presentation of evidence as distinguished from a sham, fictitious, contrived or false claim. When the facts as pleaded appear uncontested or undisputed, then there is no real or genuine issue or question as to the facts, and summary judgment is called for. The party who moves for summary judgment has the burden of demonstrating clearly the absence of any genuine issue of fact, or that the issue posed in the complaint is patently unsubstantial so as not to constitute a genuine issue for trial.  Trial courts have limited authority to render summary judgments and may do so only when there is clearly no genuine issue as to any material fact. When the facts as pleaded by the parties are disputed or contested, proceedings for summary judgment cannot take the place of trial.[41] (Underscoring supplied.)

    Juxtaposing the Complaint and the Answer discloses that the material facts here are not undisputed so as to call for the rendition of a summary judgment. While the denials of Spouses Go could have been phrased more strongly or more emphatically, and the Answer more coherently and logically structured in order to overthrow any shadow of doubt that such denials were indeed made, the pleadings show that they did in fact raise material issues that have to be addressed and threshed out in a full-blown trial.

    PBCom anchors its arguments on the alleged implied admission by Spouses Go resulting from their failure to specifically deny the material allegations in the Complaint, citing as precedent Philippine Bank of Communications v. Court of Appeals,[42] and Morales v. Court of Appeals. Spouses Go, on the other hand, argue that although admissions were made in the Answer, the special and affirmative defenses contained therein tendered genuine issues.

    Under the Rules, every pleading must contain, in a methodical and logical form, a plain, concise and direct statement of the ultimate facts on which the party pleading relies for his claim or defense, as the case may be, omitting the statement of mere evidentiary facts.[43]

    To specifically deny a material allegation, a defendant must specify each material allegation of fact the truth of which he does not admit, and whenever practicable, shall set forth the substance of the matters upon which he relies to support his denial. Where a defendant desires to deny only a part of an averment, he shall specify so much of it as is true and material and shall deny only the remainder. Where a defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of a material averment made in the complaint, he shall so state, and this shall have the effect of a denial.[44]

    Rule 8, Section 10 of the Rules of Civil Procedure contemplates three (3) modes of specific denial, namely: 1) by specifying each material allegation of the fact in the complaint, the truth of which the defendant does not admit, and whenever practicable, setting forth the substance of the matters which he will rely upon to support his denial; (2) by specifying so much of an averment in the complaint as is true and material and denying only the remainder; (3) by stating that the defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of a material averment in the complaint, which has the effect of a denial.[45]

    The purpose of requiring the defendant to make a specific denial is to make him disclose the matters alleged in the complaint which he succinctly intends to disprove at the trial, together with the matter which he relied upon to support the denial. The parties are compelled to lay their cards on the table.[46]

    Again, in drafting pleadings, members of the bar are enjoined to be clear and concise in their language, and to be organized and logical in their composition and structure in order to set forth their statements of fact and arguments of law in the most readily comprehensible manner possible. Failing such standard, allegations made in pleadings are not to be taken as stand-alone catchphrases in the interest of accuracy. They must be contextualized and interpreted in relation to the rest of the statements in the pleading.

    In Spouses Gaza v. Lim, the Court ruled that the CA erred in declaring that the petitioners therein impliedly admitted respondents' allegation that they had prior and continuous possession of the property, as petitioners did in fact enumerate their special and affirmative defenses in their Answer. They also specified therein each allegation in the complaint being denied by them. The Court therein stated:

    The Court of Appeals held that spouses Gaza, petitioners, failed to deny specifically, in their answer, paragraphs 2, 3 and 5 of the complaint for forcible entry quoted as follows:

    xxx xxx xxx

    2. That plaintiffs are the actual and joint occupants and in prior continuous physical possession since 1975 up to Nov. 28, 1993 of a certain commercial compound described as follows:

    A certain parcel of land situated in Bo. Sta. Maria, Calauag, Quezon. Bounded on the N., & E., by Julian de Claro; on the W., by Luis Urrutia. Containing an area of 5,270 square meters, more or less. Declared under Ramon J. Lim's Tax Dec. No. 4576 with an Ass. Value of P26,100.00

    3. That plaintiffs have been using the premises mentioned for combined lumber and copra business. Copies of plaintiffs' Lumber Certificate of Registration No. 2490 and PCA Copra Business Registration No. 6265/76 are hereto attached as Annexes "A" and "B" respectively; the Mayor's unnumbered copra dealer's permit dated Dec. 31, 1976 hereto attached as Annex "C";

    xxx xxx xxx

    5. That defendants' invasion of plaintiffs' premises was accomplished illegally by detaining plaintiffs' caretaker Emilio Herrera and his daughter inside the compound, then proceeded to saw the chain that held plaintiffs' padlock on the main gate of the compound and then busted or destroyed the padlock that closes the backyard gate or exit. Later, they forcibly opened the lock in the upstairs room of plaintiff Agnes J. Lim's quarters and defendants immediately filled it with other occupants now. Copy of the caretaker's (Emilio Herrera) statement describing in detail is hereto attached as Annex "D";

    xxx xxx xxx.7


    The Court of Appeals then concluded that since petitioners did not deny specifically in their answer the above-quoted allegations in the complaint, they judicially admitted that Ramon and Agnes Lim, respondents, "were in prior physical possession of the subject property, and the action for forcible entry which they filed against private respondents (spouses Gaza) must be decided in their favor. The defense of private respondents that they are the registered owners of the subject property is unavailing."

    We observe that the Court of Appeals failed to consider paragraph 2 of petitioners' answer quoted as follows:

    2. That defendants specifically deny the allegations in paragraph 2 and 3 of the complaint for want of knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth thereof, the truth of the matter being those alleged in the special and affirmative defenses of the defendants;"8


    Clearly, petitioners specifically denied the allegations contained in paragraphs 2 and 3 of the complaint that respondents have prior and continuous possession of the disputed property which they used for their lumber and copra business. Petitioners did not merely allege they have no knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to truth of those allegations in the complaint, but added the following:

    SPECIAL AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

    That defendants hereby reiterate, incorporate and restate the foregoing and further allege:

    5. That the complaint states no cause of action;

    "From the allegations of plaintiffs, it appears that their possession of the subject property was not supported by any concrete title or right, nowhere in the complaint that they alleged either as an owner or lessee, hence, the alleged possession of plaintiffs is questionable from all aspects. Defendants Sps. Napoleon Gaza and Evelyn Gaza being the registered owner of the subject property has all the right to enjoy the same, to use it, as an owner and in support thereof, a copy of the transfer certificate of title No. T-47263 is hereto attached and marked as Annex "A-Gaza" and a copy of the Declaration of Real Property is likewise attached and marked as Annex "B-Gaza" to form an integral part hereof;

    6. That considering that the above-entitled case is an ejectment case, and considering further that the complaint did not state or there is no showing that the matter was referred to a Lupon for conciliation under the provisions of P.D. No. 1508, the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure of 1991, particularly Section 18 thereof provides that such a failure is jurisdictional, hence subject to dismissal;

    7. That the Honorable Court has no jurisdiction over the subject of the action or suit;

    The complaint is for forcible entry and the plaintiffs were praying for indemnification in the sum of P350,000.00 for those copra, lumber, tools, and machinery listed in par. 4 of the complaint and P100,000.00 for unrealized income in the use of the establishment, considering the foregoing amounts not to be rentals, Section 1 A (1) and (2) of the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure prohibits recovery of the same, hence, the Honorable Court can not acquire jurisdiction over the same. Besides, the defendants Napoleon Gaza and Evelyn Gaza being the owners of those properties cited in par. 4 of the complaint except for those copra and two (2) live carabaos outside of the subject premises, plaintiffs have no rights whatsoever in claiming damages that it may suffer, as and by way of proof of ownership of said properties cited in paragraph 4 of the complaint attached herewith are bunche[s] of documents to form an integral part hereof;

    8. That plaintiffs' allegation that Emilio Herrera was illegally detained together with his daughter was not true and in support thereof, attached herewith is a copy of said Herrera's statement and marked as Annex "C-Gaza."

    xxx      xxx     xxx.9


    The above-quoted paragraph 2 and Special and Affirmative Defenses contained in petitioners' answer glaringly show that petitioners did not admit impliedly that respondents have been in prior and actual physical possession of the property. Actually, petitioners are repudiating vehemently respondents' possession, stressing that they (petitioners) are the registered owners and lawful occupants thereof.

    Respondents' reliance on Warner Barnes and Co., Ltd. v. Reyes10 in maintaining that petitioners made an implied admission in their answer is misplaced. In the cited case, the defendants' answer merely alleged that they were "without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the material averments of the remainder of the complaint" and "that they hereby reserve the right to present an amended answer with special defenses and counterclaim."11 In the instant case, petitioners enumerated their special and affirmative defenses in their answer. They also specified therein each allegation in the complaint being denied by them. They particularly alleged they are the registered owners and lawful possessors of the land and denied having wrested possession of the premises from the respondents through force, intimidation, threat, strategy and stealth. They asserted that respondents' purported possession is "questionable from all aspects." They also averred that they own all the personal properties enumerated in respondents' complaint, except the two carabaos. Indeed, nowhere in the answer can we discern an implied admission of the allegations of the complaint, specifically the allegation that petitioners have priority of possession.

    Thus, the Court of Appeals erred in declaring that herein petitioners impliedly admitted respondents' allegation that they have prior and continuous possession of the property.[47] (Underscoring supplied.)

    In this case, as in Gaza, the admissions made by Spouses Go are to be read and taken together with the rest of the allegations made in the Answer, including the special and affirmative defenses.

    For instance, on the fact of default, PBCom alleges in paragraph 8 of the Complaint that Go defaulted in the payment for both promissory notes, having paid only three interest installments covering the months of September, November, and December 1999.

    In paragraph 6 of the Answer, Spouses Go denied the said allegation, and further alleged in paragraphs 8 to 13 that Go made substantial payments on his monthly loan amortizations.

    The portions of the pleadings referred to are juxtaposed below:

    Complaint
    Answer
    8. The defendant defaulted in the payment of the obligations on the two (2) promissory notes (Annexes "A" and "B" hereof) as he has paid only three (3) installments on interests (sic) payments covering the months of September, November and December, 1999, on both promissory notes, respectively. As a consequence of the default, the entire balance due on the obligations of the defendant to plaintiff on both promissory notes immediately became due and demandable pursuant to the terms and conditions embodied in the two (2) promissory notes;[48]

    6. Defendants deny the allegations in paragraphs 8, 9, 10 and 11 of the Complaint;

    x x x

    8. The promissory notes referred to in the complaint expressly state that the loan obligation is payable within the period of ten (10) years. Thus, from the execution date of September 30, 1999, its due date falls on September 3o, 2009 (and not 2001 as erroneously stated in the complaint). Thus, prior to September 30, 2009, the loan obligations cannot be deemed due and demandable.

    In conditional obligations, the acquisition of rights, as well as the extinguishment or loss of those already acquired, shall depend upon the happening of the event which constitutes the condition. (Article 1181, New Civil Code)

    9. Contrary to the plaintiff's preference, defendant Jose C. Go has made substantial payments in terms of his monthly payments. There is therefore, a need to do some accounting works (sic) just to reconcile the records of both parties.

    10. While demand is a necessary requirement to consider the defendant to be in delay/default, such has not been complied with by the plaintiff since the former is not aware of any demand made to him by the latter for the settlement of the whole obligation.

    11. Undeniably, at the time the pledge of the shares of stocks were executed, their total value is more than the amount of the loan, or at the very least, equal to it. Thus, plaintiff was fully secured insofar as its exposure is concerned.[49]

    12. And even assuming without conceding, that the present value of said shares has went (sic) down, it cannot be considered as something permanent since, the prices of stocks in the market either increases (sic) or (sic) decreases depending on the market forces. Thus, it is highly speculative for the plaintiff to consider said shares to have suffered tremendous decrease in its value. Moreso (sic), it is unfair for the plaintiff to renounce or abandon the pledge agreements.

    13. As aptly stated, it is not aware of any termination of the pledge agreement initiated by the plaintiff.



    Moreover, in paragraph 10 of the Answer, Spouses Go also denied the existence of prior demand alleged by PBCom in paragraph 10 of the Complaint. They stated therein that they were not aware of any demand made by PBCom for the settlement of the whole obligation. Both sections are quoted below:

    Complaint
    Answer
    10. Plaintiff made repeated demands from (sic) defendant for the payment of the obligations which the latter acknowledged to have incurred however, defendant imposed conditions such as [that] his [effecting] payments shall depend upon the lifting of garnishment effected by the Bangko Sentral on his accounts. Photocopies of defendant's communication dated March 3, 2000 and April 7, 2000, with plaintiff are hereto attached as Annexes "F" and "G" hereof, as well as its demand to pay dated April 18, 2000. Demand by plaintiff is hereto attached as Annex "H" hereof.[50] [Emphases supplied]
    10. While demand is a necessary requirement to consider the defendant to be in delay/default, such has not been complied with by the plaintiff since the former is not aware of any demand made to him by the latter for the settlement of the whole obligation.


    Finally, as to the amount of the outstanding obligation, PBCom alleged in paragraph 9 of the Complaint that the outstanding balance on the couples' obligations as of May 31, 2001 was P21,576,668.64 for the first loan and P95,991,111.11, for the second loan or a total of P117,567,779.75.

    In paragraph 9 of the Answer, however, Spouses Go, without stating any specific amount, averred that substantial monthly payments had been made, and there was a need to reconcile the accounting records of the parties.

    Complaint
    Answer
    9. Defendants' outstanding obligations under the two (2) promissory notes as of May 31, 2001 are: P21,576,668.64 (Annex "A") and P95,991,111.11 (Annex "B"), or a total of P117,567,779.75. Copy of the Statement of Account is hereto attached as Annex "E" hereof.[51]
    9. Contrary to the plaintiff's preference, defendant Jose C. Go has made substantial payments in terms of his monthly payments. There is therefore, a need to do some accounting works just to reconcile the records of both parties.[52]


    Clearly then, when taken within the context of the entirety of the pleading, it becomes apparent that there was no implied admission and that there were indeed genuine issues to be addressed.

    As to the attached March 3, 2000 letter, the Court is in accord with the CA when it wrote:

    The letter dated March 3, 2000 is insufficient to support the material averments in PBCom's complaint for being equivocal and capable of different interpretations. The contents of the letter do not address all the issues material to the bank's claim and thus do not conclusively establish the cause of action of PBCom against the spouses Go. As regards the letter dated April 7, 2000, the trial court itself ruled that such letter addressed to PBCom could not be considered against the defendants-appellants simply because it was not signed by defendant-appellant Jose Go.

    Notably, the trial court even agreed with the defendant-appellants on the following points:

    The alleged default and outstanding obligations are based on the Statement of Account. This Court agrees with the defendants that since the substance of the document was not set forth in the complaint although a copy thereof was attached thereto, or the said document was not set forth verbatim in the pleading, the rule on implied admission does not apply.[53]

    It must also be pointed out that the cases cited by PBCom do not apply to this case. Those two cases involve denial of lack of knowledge of facts "so plainly and necessarily within [the knowledge of the party making such denial] that such averment of ignorance must be palpably untrue."[54] Also, in both cases, the documents denied were the same documents or deeds sued upon or made the basis of, and attached to, the complaint.

    In Philippine Bank of Communications v. Court of Appeals,[55] the Court ruled that the defendant's contention that it had no truth or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the deed of exchange was an invalid or ineffectual denial pursuant to the Rules of Court,[56] as it could have easily asserted whether or not it had executed the deed of exchange attached to the petition. Citing Capitol Motors Corporations v. Yabut,[57] the Court stated that:

    x x x The rule authorizing an answer to the effect that the defendant has no knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of an averment and giving such answer the effect of a denial, does not apply where the fact as to which want of knowledge is asserted, is so plainly and necessarily within the defendant's knowledge that his averment of ignorance must be palpably untrue.[58]

    The Warner Barnes case cited above sprung from a suit for foreclosure of mortgage, where the document that defendant denied was the deed of mortgage sued upon and attached to the complaint. The Court then ruled that it would have been easy for the defendants to specifically allege in their answer whether or not they had executed the alleged mortgage.

    Similarly, in Capitol Motors, the document denied was the promissory note sued upon and attached to the complaint.  In said case, the Court ruled that although a statement of lack of knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of a material averment in the complaint was one of the modes of specific denial contemplated under the Rules, paragraph 2 of the Answer in the said case was insufficient to constitute a specific denial.[59] Following the ruling in the Warner Barnes case, the Court held that it would have been easy for defendant to specifically allege in the Answer whether or not it had executed the promissory note attached to the Complaint.[60]

    In Morales v. Court of Appeals,[61] the matter denied was intervenor's knowledge of the plaintiff's having claimed ownership of the vehicle in contention. The Court therein stated:

    Yet, despite the specific allegation as against him, petitioner, in his Answer in Intervention with Counterclaim and Crossclaim, answered the aforesaid paragraph 11, and other paragraphs, merely by saying that "he has no knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to its truth." While it may be true that under the Rules one could avail of this statement as a means of a specific denial, nevertheless, if an allegation directly and specifically charges a party to have done, performed or committed a particular act, but the latter had not in fact done, performed or committed it, a categorical and express denial must be made. In such a case, the occurrence or non-occurrence of the facts alleged may be said to be within the party's knowledge. In short, the petitioner herein could have simply expressly and in no uncertain terms denied the allegation if it were untrue. It has been held that when the matters of which a defendant alleges of having no knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief, are plainly and necessarily within his knowledge, his alleged ignorance or lack of information will not be considered as specific denial. His denial lacks the element of sincerity and good faith, hence, insufficient.[62]

    Borrowing the phraseology of the Court in the Capitol Motors case, clearly, the fact of the parties' having executed the very documents sued upon, that is, the deed of exchange, deed or mortgage or promissory note, is so plainly and necessarily within the knowledge of the denying parties that any averment of ignorance as to such fact must be palpably untrue.

    In this case, however, Spouses Go are not disclaiming knowledge of the transaction or the execution of the promissory notes or the pledge agreements sued upon. The matters in contention are, as the CA stated, whether or not respondents were in default, whether there was prior demand, and the amount of the outstanding loan. These are the matters that the parties disagree on and by which reason they set forth vastly different allegations in their pleadings which each will have to prove by presenting relevant and admissible evidence during trial.

    Furthermore, in stark contrast to the cited cases where one of the parties disclaimed knowledge of something so patently within his knowledge, in this case, respondents Spouses Go categorically stated in the Answer that there was no prior demand, that they were not in default, and that the amount of the outstanding loan would have to be ascertained based on official records.

    WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED.

    SO ORDERED.

    Carpio, (Chairperson), Nachura, Peralta, and Abad, JJ. concur.

    Endnotes:


    [1] Rollo, pp. 33-42.

    [2] Id. at 44-45.

    [3] Id. at 34.

    [4] Id.

    [5] Id.

    [6] Id. at 46-56.

    [7] Id. at 35.

    [8] Id. at 35-36.

    [9]   Id. at 64.

    [10] Id.

    [11] Id. at 36.

    [12] Id.

    [13] Id. at 80-86.

    [14] Id. at 86.

    [15] Id. at 37.

    [16] Id. at 41.

    [17] Id. at 39.

    [18] Id.

    [19] Id. at 39-40.

    [20] Id. at 44-45. Penned by Associate Justice Rodrigo V. Cosico, with Associate Justices Edgardo F. Sundiam and Apolinario D. Bruselas, Jr. (in lieu of Associate Justice Japar B. Dimaampao who was on leave per Office Order No. 300-06-RTR dated November 14, 2006), concurring.

    [21] Id. at 236.

    [22] Id. at 237

    [23] Id. at 174.

    [24] Id. at 240.

    [25] Id. at 241.

    [26] Id. at 242.

    [27] Article 1198 of the Civil Code provides: "The debtor shall lose every right to make use of the period:

    (1) When after the obligation has been contracted, he becomes insolvent, unless he gives a guaranty or security for the debt;

    (2) When he does not furnish to the creditor the guaranties or securities which he has promised;

    (3) When by his own acts he has impaired said guaranties or securities after their establishment, and when through a fortuitous event they disappear, unless he immediately gives new ones equally satisfactory;

    (4) When the debtor violates any undertaking, in consideration of which the creditor agreed to the period;

    (5) When the debtor attempts to abscond."

    [28] Rollo, pp. 242-243.

    [29] Id. at 244.

    [30] Id. at 210.

    [31] Id. at 211.

    [32] Philippine Bank of Communications v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 92067, March 22, 1991, 195 SCRA 567 and Morales v. Court of Appeals,  274 Phil.674 (1991).

    [33] Rollo, p. 215.

    [34] Id.

    [35] Id. at  213.

    [36] Id. at 39.

    [37] Rule 35, Rules of Civil Procedure.

    [38] G.R. No. 153827, April 25, 2006, 488 SCRA 192.

    [39] Citing Northwest Airlines v. CA, 348 Phil. 438, 449 (1998).

    [40] Citing Excelsa Industries, Inc, v. CA, 317 Phil. 664, 671 (1995).

    [41] Supra note 38 at 202-203, citing Evadel Realty and Development Corporation v. Soriano, 409 Phil. 450, 461 (2001).

    [42] G.R. No. 92067, March 22, 1991, 195 SCRA 567.

    [43] Section 1, Rule 8, Rules of Civil Procedure.

    [44] Section 10, Rule 8, Rules of Civil Procedure.

    [45] Spouses Gaza. v. Ramon J. Lim and Agnes J. Lim, 443 Phil. 337, 345 (2003).

    [46] Aquintey v. Tibong, G.R. No. 166704, December 20, 2006, 511 SCRA 414, 432.

    [47] Supra note 45.

    [48] Rollo, p. 50.

    [49] Id. at 59.

    [50] Id. at 50.

    [51] Id.

    [52] Id. at 59.

    [53] Id. at 40.

    [54] Warner Barnes & Co., Ltd. v. Reyes, 103 Phil. 662, 665 (1958), citing Icle Plant Equipment Co. v. Marcello, D.C. Pa. 1941, 43 F. Supp. 281.

    [55] Philippine Bank of Communications v. Court of Appeals, supra note 32.

    [56] Id. at 574.

    [57] Id.

    [58] Id., citing Warner Barnes & Co., Ltd. v. Reyes, 103 Phil. 662 (1958).

    [59] Id.

    [60] Id.

    [61] 274 Phil. 674, 686 (1991).

    [62] Id. at 674, citing Gutierrez v. Court of Appeals, 165 Phil. 752 (1976) and Warner Barnes & Co. v. Reyes, 103 Phil. 662 (1958).

    [G.R. No. 175514, February 14 : 2011]   PHILIPPINE BANK OF COMMUNICATIONS, PETITIONER, VS. SPOUSES JOSE C. GO AND ELVY T. GO, RESPONDENTS.


    Back to Home | Back to Main

     

    QUICK SEARCH

    cralaw

       

    cralaw



     
      Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
    ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™
     
    RED