Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2011 > February 2011 Resolutions > [G.R. No. 184244 : February 14, 2011] CENTENNIAL AIR, INC. V. MACROASIA MENZIES AIRPORT SERVICES CORPORATION :

Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 14 February 2011 which reads as follows: 

G.R. No. 184244 (Centennial Air, Inc. v. Macroasia Menzies Airport Services Corporation). - This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, assailing the August 13, 2008 Decision^[1] of the Court of Appeals (CA), affirming with modification the May 23, 2003 Order^[2] of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasay City, Branch 115.

The facts:

Respondent Macroasia Menzies Airport Services Corporation (respondent) is a domestic corporation engaged in the business of providing airline support services, while petitioner Centennial Air, Inc. (petitioner), likewise a domestic corporation, is engaged in the business of domestic air transport of passengers and cargoes.^[3]

Respondent sued petitioner, alleging that, despite repeated demands,^[4] the latter refused to pay for the services rendered by the former, amounting to P972,221.15,^[5] as evidenced by the following invoices:^[6]                                                                                                                                                                                                           

Invoice Date	Invoice No.	Period Covered	Type of Service/s   Availed of	Amount Due
June 26, 2000	000159	June 18-24, 2000	Cargo Loading	76,624.67
June 30, 2000	000163	June 25-30, 2000	Cargo Loading	69,108.37
Sept. 28, 2000	000202	Sept. 19-23, 2000	Cargo Loading	22,950.27
Dec. 12, 2000	000230	Sept. 28-Dec. 8, 2000	Cargo Loading and unloading, aircraft push back/towing/ repositioning, use of company vehicle and ground power unit	526,986.67
Dec. 19, 2000	000234	Dec. 8-16, 2000	Cargo Loading and unloading, aircraft pushback/ towing/ repositioning use of company vehicle	83,394.36
Dec. 27, 2000	000238	Dec. 16-23, 2000	Cargo Loading and unloading, aircraft pushback/ towing and use of company vehicle	132,918.36
Dec. 31, 2000	000242	Dec. 26-30, 2000	Cargo Loading and unloading, aircraft pushback/ towing	64,269.31

In its answer,^[7] petitioner made these averments, among others:

4. It denies the allegations of paragraphs 4, 5, and 8 for the reasons stated in its special and affirmative defenses; 

5. It denies the allegations of paragraphs 6 and 7, the truth being that no claims were filed against defendant and if at all claims were filed, they were denied for being unmeritorious and unfounded: 

6. It denies the allegations of paragraph 9, the truth being that defendant has just and valid grounds in refusing to pay plaintiffs claim; attorney's fees allegedly incurred or to be incurred are the sole concern of plaintiff.

By way of special and affirmative defenses, petitioner made the following statements: 

1. [Respondent's] complaint has no cause of action; 

2. [Respondent] has no cause of action against [petitioner] since [it] did not enter into the alleged transaction being claimed by [respondent] and/or that the same are unauthorized and invalid transactions; 

3. [Respondent's] claim has been paid, waived, abandoned or otherwise extinguished; 

4. [Respondent's] claim on which the action is founded is unenforceable under the provisions of the statute of frauds; 

5. [Respondent's] cause of action is barred by statute of limitations; 

6. [Respondent] is not the real party in interest.

Thereafter, respondent filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings on the ground that petitioner's answer failed to tender an issue of fact that requires trial and presentation of evidence.^[8]

The RTC granted the motion in its Order dated May 23, 2003, which disposed as follows: 

WHEREFORE, the [respondent's] motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is GRANTED, and accordingly, judgment is hereby rendered directing the defendant to pay to [respondent! the sum of: 

1. P972,221.15 plus legal interest thereon at the rate of six (6%) percent per annum to be computed from October 5, 2001, the date of the [respondent's] first demand letter to the defendant, until fully paid. (Article 2209 and Article 2213. New Civil Code)  
    
2. P200,000.00 as litigation expenses. (Article 2208 (2), New Civil Code) and 
    
3. Costs of suit.

  SO ORDERED.^[9]

On appeal, the CA agreed with the RTC, and held that paragraphs 4, 5 and 6 of petitioner's answer constitute a general denial, and that they failed to specify which of the material factual allegations in the complaint they intended to deny. The CA further found that petitioner's so-called affirmative and special defenses were mere conclusions unsupported by any factual allegation. As such, petitioner failed to raise any factual issue, thus, warranting the propriety of a judgment on the pleadings.

The CA likewise sustained the monetary award to respondent, ruling that the same was substantiated by evidence on record. However, the appellate court clarified the imposition of the 6% rate of legal interest. The CA also deleted the award of attorney's fees because the basis therefor was not explained in the body of the RTCs judgment. Accordingly, the decretal portion of the CA Decision reads: 

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, judgment is hereby rendered by Us DENYING the appeal filed in this case and AFFIRMING with MODIFICATION the order of the Court a quo by: (a) Imposing a 6% interest per annum on the obligation, P972,221.15 from October 5, 2001, the date of receipt of the first demand, until the assailed order becomes final and executory. Afterwhich, the obligation shall earn 12% per annum until the amount shall have been satisfied in full, and (b) Deleting the award of attorney's fees and costs of suit. 

SO ORDERED.^[10]

Hence, the instant petition. 

We find no merit in the petition, and the CA committed no reversible error in affirming the judgment on the pleading rendered by the RTC. 

Petitioner�s answer did not raise any material issue; neither did it deal with the material allegations in the complaint. Further, the denials set forth in the answer did not comply with the requirements of specific denial set forth in Section 10, Rule 8 of the Rules of Court.^[11] 

In a proper case for judgment on the pleadings, there is no ostensible issue at all because of the failure of the defending party�s answer to raise an issue.^[12] The answer would fail to tender an issue, of course, if it does not deny the material allegations in the complaint, or admits the material allegations of the adverse party�s pleadings by confessing the truthfulness thereof and/or omitting to deal with them at all,^[13] or if it does not comply with the requirements of a specific denial set out in Section 10, Rule 8 of the Rules of Court.^[14] 

We find no cause to disturb the findings of fact of the CA as to the imposable interest rate of 6% per annum on the obligation. We also find no persuasive reason to contradict the ruling of both courts that petitioner�s obligation to respondent is valid, existing, enforceable, due, and demandable. Certainly, respondent's complaint could not be considered to be without sufficient cause of action. The judgment rendered by the trial court was a valid judgment on the pleadings, and its affirmance by the CA was in order. 

WHEREFORE, there being no reversible error in the assailed CA Decision, the petition is hereby DENIED. The August 13, 2008 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 86051 is AFFIRMED  in toto. 

SO ORDERED.

MA. LUISA L. LAUREA
  Clerk of Court

By:

(Sgd.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZON
  Asst. Clerk of Court

Endnotes:

---

^[1] Rollo, pp. 26-37.

^[2] Id. at 40-42. 

^[3] Supra note 1, at 27. 

^[4] Rollo, pp. 58-60. 

^[5] Complaint; id. at 44-50. 

^[6] Id. at 51-57. 

^[7] Id. at 61-65. 

^[8] Id. at 66-75. 

^[9] Supra note 2, at 42. 

^[10] Supra note 1, at 36. 

^[11] Sec. 10. Specific denial - 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. x x x. 

^[12] Reillo v. San Jose, G.R. No. 166393, June 18, 2009, 589 SCRA 458. 467-468 citing Tan v De la Vega, G.R. No. 168809, March 10, 2006, 484 SCRA 538, 545. 

^[13] Reillo v. San Jose, supra, at 468. 

^[14] Mongao v. Pryce Properties Corporation, G.R. No. 156474, August 16, 2005, 467 SCRA 201 209, citing Vergara, Sr. v. Suelto, No. L-74766, December 21, 1987, 156 SCRA 753, 761-762.