Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
_______________
*SECONDDIVISION.
694
694 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
PhilippineBankofCommunicationsvs.Go.
694 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
PhilippineBankofCommunicationsvs.Go.
695
VOL.642,FEBRUARY14,2011 695
PhilippineBankofCommunicationsvs.Go.
VOL.642,FEBRUARY14,2011 695
PhilippineBankofCommunicationsvs.Go.
denial(2)byspecifyingsomuchofanavermentinthecomplaintasistrue
and material and denying only the remainder (3) by stating that the
defendantiswithoutknowledgeorinformationsufficienttoformabeliefas
tothetruthofamaterialavermentinthecomplaint,whichhastheeffectofa
denial.
SameSameSameSamePurposeofRequiringtheDefendanttoMake
a Specific Denial.The purpose of requiring the defendant to make a
specific denial is to make him disclose the matters alleged in the complaint
whichhesuccinctlyintendstodisproveatthetrial,togetherwiththematter
whichhereliedupontosupportthedenial.Thepartiesarecompelledtolay
theircardsonthetable.
Same Same Same Same Allegations made in pleadings must be
contextualizedandinterpretedinrelationtotherestofthestatementsinthe
pleading.Again,indraftingpleadings,membersofthebarareenjoinedto
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
standalone catchphrases in the interest of accuracy. They must be
contextualizedandinterpretedinrelationtotherestofthestatementsinthe
pleading.
Same Same Same Same As held in Philippine Bank of
Communications v. Court of Appeals, 195 SCRA 567 (1991), the Court
ruled that the defendants contention that it had no truth or information
sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the deed of exchange was an
invalidorineffectualdenialpursuanttotheRulesofCourt,asitcouldhave
easilyassertedwhetherornotithadexecutedthedeedofexchangeattached
tothepetition.InPhilippineBankofCommunicationsv.CourtofAppeals,
195SCRA567(1991),theCourtruledthatthedefendantscontentionthatit
hadnotruthorinformationsufficienttoformabeliefastothetruthofthe
deed of exchange was an invalid or ineffectual denial pursuant to the Rules
ofCourt,asitcouldhaveeasilyassertedwhetherornotithadexecutedthe
deed of exchange attached to the petition. Citing Capitol Motors
Corporationsv.Yabut, 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
answertheeffectofadenial,doesnot
696
696 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
PhilippineBankofCommunicationsvs.Go.
696 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
PhilippineBankofCommunicationsvs.Go.
applywherethefactastowhichwantofknowledgeisasserted,issoplainly
and necessarily within the defendants knowledge that his averment of
ignorancemustbepalpablyuntrue.
PETITIONforreviewoncertiorariofthedecisionandresolutionof
theCourtofAppeals.
ThefactsarestatedintheopinionoftheCourt.
M.Z.Baaga,Jr.andAssociatesLawOfficesforpetitioner.
PachecoLawOfficeforrespondents.
MENDOZA,J.:
ThisisapetitionforreviewoncertiorariunderRule45filedby
petitionerPhilippineBankofCommunications(PBCom)seekingto
set aside the July 28, 2006 Decision,1 and the November 27, 2006
Resolution2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CAG.R. CV No.
77714.TheCAdecisionreversedandsetasidetheJanuary25,2002
Decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 42, Manila (RTC),
which granted the motion for summary judgment and rendered
judgmentonthebasisofthepleadingsandattacheddocuments.
TheFacts
_______________
1Rollo,pp.3342.
2Id.,atpp.4445.
3Id.,atp.34.
697
VOL.642,FEBRUARY14,2011 697
PhilippineBankofCommunicationsvs.Go.
VOL.642,FEBRUARY14,2011 697
PhilippineBankofCommunicationsvs.Go.
8.Thepromissorynotereferredtointhecomplaintexpresslystatethat
theloanobligationispayablewithintheperiodoften(10)years.Thus,from
theexecutiondateofSeptember30,1999,itsduedatefallsonSeptember30,
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.
_______________
4Id.
5Id.
6Id.,atpp.4656.
7Id.,atp.35.
8Id.,atpp.3536.
698
698 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
PhilippineBankofCommunicationsvs.Go.
698 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
PhilippineBankofCommunicationsvs.Go.
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
CivilCode)
9. Contrary to the plaintiffs proferrence, defendant Jose C. Go had
made substantial payments in terms of his monthly payments. There is,
therefore,aneedtodosomeaccountingworks(sic)toreconciletherecords
ofbothparties.
10.Whiledemandisanecessaryrequirementtoconsiderthedefendant
tobeindelay/default,suchhasnotbeencompliedwithbytheplaintiffsince
the former is not aware of any demand made to him by the latter for the
settlementofthewholeobligation.
11. Undeniably, at the time the pledge of the shares of stock were
executed,theirtotalvalueismorethantheamountoftheloanoratthevery
least,equaltoit.Thus,plaintiffwasfullysecuredinsofarasitsexposureis
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)dependingonthemarketforces.Thus,itishighlyspeculative
fortheplaintifftoconsidersaidsharestohavesufferedtremendousdecrease
initsvalue.Moreso,itisunfairfortheplaintifftorenounceorabandonthe
pledgeagreements.
_______________
9Id.,atp.64.
699
VOL.642,FEBRUARY14,2011 699
PhilippineBankofCommunicationsvs.Go.
VOL.642,FEBRUARY14,2011 699
PhilippineBankofCommunicationsvs.Go.
III.PLANTIFFS CAUSES OF ACTIONS ARE SUPPORTED BY
VOLUNTARY ADMISSIONS AND AUTHENTIC DOCUMENTS
WHICHMAYNOTBECONTRADICTED.10
PBComcontendedthattheAnswerinterposednospecificdenials
on the material averments in paragraphs 8 to 11 of the complaint
suchasthefactofdefault,theentireamountbeingalreadydueand
demandable by reason of default, and the fact that the bank had
made repeated demands for the payment of the
obligations.11Spouses Go opposed the motion for summary
judgment arguing that they had tendered genuine factual issues
calling for the presentation of evidence.12The RTC granted
PBComs motion in its Judgment13 dated January 25, 2002, the
dispositiveportionofwhichstates:
_______________
10Id.
11Id.,atp.36.
12Id.
13Id.,atpp.8086.
14Id.,atp.86.
15Id.,atp.37.
700
700 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
PhilippineBankofCommunicationsvs.Go.
700 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
PhilippineBankofCommunicationsvs.Go.
RulingoftheCourtofAppeals
In its Decision dated July 28, 2006, the CA reversed and set
asidetheassailedjudgmentoftheRTC,deniedPBComsmotionfor
summary judgment, and ordered the remand of the records to the
courtoforiginfortrialonthemerits.Thedispositiveportionofthe
decisionstates:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the assailed judgment of the
RegionalTrialCourt,Branch42ofManilainCivilCaseNo.01101190is
hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE, and a new one entered denying
plaintiffappellees motion for summary judgment. Accordingly, the records
ofthecaseareherebyremandedtothecourtoforiginfortrialonthemerits.
SOORDERED.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
foundthesupposedadmissiontobeinsufficienttojustifyarendition
ofsummaryjudgmentinthecaseforsumofmoney,sincetherewere
otherallegationsanddefensesputupbySpousesGointheirAnswer
whichraisedgenuineissuesonthematerialfactsintheaction.17
TheCAagreedwithSpousesGothatparagraphs3and4ofthe
complaint merely dwelt on the fact that a contract of loan was
enteredintobytheparties,whileparagraph7simplyemphasizedthe
termsofthepromissorynotesexecutedbyGoinfavorofPBCom.
Thefactofdefault,theamountoftheoutstandingobligation,andthe
existence of a prior demand, which were all material to PBComs
claim,werehardlyadmitted18bySpousesGointheirAnswerand
were, in fact, effectively questioned in the other allegations in the
Answer.19
_______________
16Id.,atp.41.
17Id.,atp.39.
18Id.
19Id.,atpp.3940.
701
VOL.642,FEBRUARY14,2011 701
PhilippineBankofCommunicationsvs.Go.
VOL.642,FEBRUARY14,2011 701
PhilippineBankofCommunicationsvs.Go.
PBComsmotionforreconsiderationwasdeniedinaresolution20
datedNovember27,2006.
Thus,thispetitionforreview.
TheIssues
I
WHETHER THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED OR ACTED IN
GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK, OR
EXCESSOFJURISDICTIONINRULINGTHATTHEREEXISTSA
GENUINE ISSUE AS TO MATERIAL FACTS IN THE ACTION IN
SPITE OF THE UNEQUIVOCAL ADMISSIONS MADE IN THE
PLEADINGSBYRESPONDENTSAND
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,
THEAMOUNTOFTHEOBLIGATION,ANDTHEEXISTENCEOF
PRIOR DEMAND, EVEN WHEN THE PLEADING CLEARLY
POINTSTOTHECONTRARY.
PetitionerPBComsPosition:
Summaryjudgmentwasproper,
astherewerenogenuineissues
raisedastoanymaterialfact.
PBCom argues that the material averments in the complaint
categoricallyadmittedbySpousesGoobviatedthenecessityoftrial.
IntheirAnswer,SpousesGoadmittedtheallegationsinparagraphs
3and4oftheComplaintpertainingtothesecurityfortheloansand
thedueexecutionofthe
_______________
20Id.,atpp.4445.PennedbyAssociateJusticeRodrigoV.Cosico,withAssociate
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. 30006RTR
datedNovember14,2006),concurring.
702
702 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
PhilippineBankofCommunicationsvs.Go.
702 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
PhilippineBankofCommunicationsvs.Go.
_______________
21Id.,atp.236.
22Id.,atp.237
23Id.,atp.174.
24Id.,atp.240.
25Id.,atp.241.
26Id.,atp.242.
27Article1198oftheCivilCodeprovides:Thedebtorshallloseeveryrightto
makeuseoftheperiod:
(1)Whenaftertheobligationhasbeencontracted,hebecomesinsolvent,unless
hegivesaguarantyorsecurityforthedebt
(2)Whenhedoesnotfurnishtothecreditortheguarantiesorsecuritieswhichhe
haspromised
(3)Whenbyhisownactshehasimpairedsaidguarantiesorsecuritiesaftertheir
establishment, and when through a fortuitous event they disappear, unless he
immediatelygivesnewonesequallysatisfactory
703
VOL.642,FEBRUARY14,2011 703
PhilippineBankofCommunicationsvs.Go.
VOL.642,FEBRUARY14,2011 703
PhilippineBankofCommunicationsvs.Go.
Further,PBComclaimsthatitscausesofactionaresupportedby
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
attachmentinacasefiledbytheBSP.28PBComemphasizesthatthe
said letters,inaddition to its letters of demand duly acknowledged
andreceivedbyGo,negatedtheirclaimthattheywerenotawareof
anydemandhavingbeenmade.29
Respondentspousesposition:
Summaryjudgmentwasnotproper.
The core contention of Spouses Go is that summary judgment
was not proper under the attendant circumstances, as there exist
genuineissueswithrespecttothefactofdefault,theamountofthe
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
admissionsinthepleadingspertainedtothehighlightofthetermsof
thecontract.Suchadmissionsmerelyrecognizedtheexistenceofthe
contract of loan and emphasized its terms and conditions.30
Moreover,althoughtheyadmittedparagraphs3,4,and7,thespecial
andaffirmativedefensescontainedintheAnswertenderedgenuine
issueswhichcouldonlyberesolvedinafullblowntrial.31
_______________
704
704 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
PhilippineBankofCommunicationsvs.Go.
704 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
PhilippineBankofCommunicationsvs.Go.
Onthematterofspecificdenial,SpousesGopositthattheCourt
decisions cited by PBCom32 do not apply on all fours in this case.
Moreover,thesubstanceoftherepaymentschedulewasnotsetforth
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
immediatelymakeprivaterespondentsliablefortheamountclaimed
by PBCom.33 Before respondents may be held liable, it must be
established, first, that they indeed defaulted and second, that the
obligationshasremainedoutstanding.34
SpousesGoalsostatethatalthoughtheyadmittedparagraphs3,4
and 7 of the Complaint, the fact of default, the amount of
outstandingobligationandtheexistenceofpriordemandwerefully
questionedinthespecialandaffirmativedefenses.35
RulingoftheCourt
TheCourtagreeswiththeCAthat[t]hesupposedadmissionof
defendantsappellants on the x x x allegations in the complaint is
clearlynotsufficienttojustifytherenditionofsummaryjudgmentin
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
materialfactsintheaction.36
TheCAcorrectlyruledthatthereexistgenuineissuesastothree
materialfacts,whichhavetobeaddressedduringtrial:
_______________
32PhilippineBankofCommunicationsv.CourtofAppeals,G.R.No.92067,March
22,1991,195SCRA567andMoralesv.CourtofAppeals,274Phil.674197SCRA
391(1991).
33Rollo,p.215.
34Id.
35Id.,atp.213.
36Id.,atp.39.
705
VOL.642,FEBRUARY14,2011 705
PhilippineBankofCommunicationsvs.Go.
VOL.642,FEBRUARY14,2011 705
PhilippineBankofCommunicationsvs.Go.
UnderRule35ofthe1997RulesofProcedure,asamended,exceptasto
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,
summaryjudgmentmaybeallowed.39Summaryoracceleratedjudgmentisa
procedural technique aimed at weeding out sham claims or defenses at an
early stage of litigation thereby avoiding the expense and loss of time
involvedinatrial.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
blowntrial.Evenifontheirfacethepleadingsappeartoraiseissues,when
the affidavits, depositions and admissions show that such issues are not
genuine,thensummaryjudgmentasprescribedbytheRulesmustensueasa
matteroflaw.Thedeterminativefactor,therefore,inamotionforsummary
judgment, is the presence or absence of a genuine issue as to any material
fact.
Agenuineissueisanissueoffactwhichrequiresthepresentationof
evidence as distinguished from a sham, fictitious, contrived or false claim.
Whenthefactsaspleadedappearuncontestedorundisputed,thenthereisno
realorgenuineissueorquestionasto
_______________
37Rule35,RulesofCivilProcedure.
38G.R.No.153827,April25,2006,488SCRA192.
39CitingNorthwestAirlinesv.CourtofAppeals,348Phil.438,449284SCRA408,417
(1998).
40CitingExcelsaIndustries,Inc.v.CourtofAppeals,317Phil.664,671247SCRA560,
566(1995).
706
706 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
PhilippineBankofCommunicationsvs.Go.
706 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
PhilippineBankofCommunicationsvs.Go.
the facts, and summary judgment is called for. The party who moves for
summary judgment has the burden of demonstrating clearly the absence of
anygenuineissueoffact,orthattheissueposedinthecomplaintispatently
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
whenthereisclearlynogenuineissueastoanymaterialfact.Whenthefacts
aspleadedbythepartiesaredisputedorcontested,proceedingsforsummary
judgmentcannottaketheplaceoftrial.41(Underscoringsupplied.)
_______________
707
VOL.642,FEBRUARY14,2011 707
PhilippineBankofCommunicationsvs.Go.
VOL.642,FEBRUARY14,2011 707
PhilippineBankofCommunicationsvs.Go.
_______________
44Section10,Rule8,RulesofCivilProcedure.
45SpousesGazav.RamonJ.LimandAgnesJ.Lim,443Phil.337,345395SCRA
261,266(2003).
46Aquinteyv.Tibong,G.R.No.166704,December20,2006,511SCRA414,432.
708
708 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
PhilippineBankofCommunicationsvs.Go.
708 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
PhilippineBankofCommunicationsvs.Go.
organizedandlogicalintheircompositionandstructureinorderto
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 standalone
catchphrases in the interest of accuracy. They must be
contextualized and interpreted in relation to the rest of the
statementsinthepleading.
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
possessionoftheproperty,aspetitionersdidinfactenumeratetheir
specialandaffirmativedefensesintheirAnswer.Theyalsospecified
thereineachallegationinthecomplaintbeingdeniedbythem.The
Courtthereinstated:
TheCourtofAppealsheldthatspousesGaza,petitioners,failedtodeny
specifically, in their answer, paragraphs 2, 3 and 5 of the complaint for
forcibleentryquotedasfollows:
xxxxxxxxx
2.Thatplaintiffsaretheactualandjointoccupantsandinprior
continuous physical possession since 1975 up to Nov. 28, 1993 of a
certaincommercialcompounddescribedasfollows:
A certain parcel of land situated in Bo. Sta. Maria, Calauag,
Quezon.BoundedontheN.,&E.,byJuliandeClaroontheW.,by
Luis Urrutia. Containing an area of 5,270 square meters, more or
less.DeclaredunderRamonJ.LimsTaxDec.No.4576withanAss.
ValueofP26,100.00
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
RegistrationNo.6265/76areheretoattachedasAnnexesAandB
respectively the Mayors unnumbered copra dealers permit dated
Dec.31,1976heretoattachedasAnnexC
xxxxxxxxx
5. That defendants invasion of plaintiffs premises was
accomplishedillegallybydetainingplaintiffscaretakerEmilio
709
VOL.642,FEBRUARY14,2011 709
PhilippineBankofCommunicationsvs.Go.
VOL.642,FEBRUARY14,2011 709
PhilippineBankofCommunicationsvs.Go.
Herreraandhisdaughterinsidethecompound,thenproceededtosaw
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. Lims quarters and defendants
immediately filled it with other occupants now. Copy of the
caretakers (Emilio Herrera) statement describing in detail is hereto
attachedasAnnexD
xxxxxxxxx.7
TheCourt of Appeals then concluded that since petitioners did not deny
specifically in their answer the abovequoted allegations in the complaint,
they judicially admitted that Ramon and Agnes Lim, respondents, were in
priorphysicalpossessionofthesubjectproperty,andtheactionforforcible
entry which they filed against private respondents (spouses Gaza) must be
decided in their favor. The defense of private respondents that they are the
registeredownersofthesubjectpropertyisunavailing.
We observe that the Court of Appeals failed to consider paragraph 2 of
petitionersanswerquotedasfollows:
2.Thatdefendantsspecificallydenytheallegationsinparagraph
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
thedefendants8
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
allegationsinthecomplaint,butaddedthefollowing:
SPECIALANDAFFIRMATIVEDEFENSES
That defendants hereby reiterate, incorporate and restate the
foregoingandfurtherallege:
5.Thatthecomplaintstatesnocauseofaction
Fromtheallegationsofplaintiffs,itappearsthattheirpossession
of the subject property was not supported by any concrete title or
right,nowhereinthecomplaintthattheyal
710
710 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
PhilippineBankofCommunicationsvs.Go.
710 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
PhilippineBankofCommunicationsvs.Go.
711
VOL.642,FEBRUARY14,2011 711
PhilippineBankofCommunicationsvs.Go.
VOL.642,FEBRUARY14,2011 711
PhilippineBankofCommunicationsvs.Go.
The abovequoted paragraph 2 and Special and Affirmative Defenses
containedinpetitionersanswerglaringlyshowthatpetitionersdidnotadmit
impliedlythatrespondentshavebeeninpriorandactualphysicalpossession
of the property. Actually, petitioners are repudiating vehemently
respondents possession, stressing that they (petitioners) are the registered
ownersandlawfuloccupantsthereof.
Respondents reliance on Warner Barnes and Co., Ltd. v. Reyes10 in
maintaining that petitioners made an implied admission in their answer is
misplaced.Inthecitedcase,thedefendantsanswermerelyallegedthatthey
werewithoutknowledgeorinformationsufficienttoformabeliefastothe
truthofthematerialavermentsoftheremainderofthecomplaintandthat
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 defensesin their answer. They also specified
therein each allegation in the complaint being denied by them. They
particularlyalleged 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
priorityofpossession.
Thus, the Court of Appeals erred in declaring that herein petitioners
impliedly admitted respondents allegation that they have prior and
continuouspossessionoftheproperty.47(Underscoringsupplied.)
Inthiscase,asinGaza,theadmissionsmadebySpousesGoare
tobereadandtakentogetherwiththerestoftheallegationsmadein
theAnswer,includingthespecialandaffirmativedefenses.
Forinstance,onthefactofdefault,PBComallegesinparagraph
8oftheComplaintthatGodefaultedinthepayment
_______________
47Supranote45.
712
712 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
PhilippineBankofCommunicationsvs.Go.
712 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
PhilippineBankofCommunicationsvs.Go.
Complaint Answer
8.Thedefendantdefaultedinthepayment 6.Defendantsdenythe
of the obligations on the two (2) allegationsinparagraphs8,
promissory notes (Annexes A and B 9,10and11ofthe
hereof) as he has paid only three (3) Complaint
installments on interests (sic) payments
xxx
covering the months of September,
November and December, 1999, on both 8.Thepromissorynotes
promissory notes, respectively. As a referredtointhecomplaint
consequence of the default, the entire expresslystatethattheloan
balance due on the obligations of the obligationispayablewithin
defendant to plaintiff on both promissory theperiodoften(10)years.
notes immediately became due and Thus,fromtheexecution
demandable pursuant to the terms and dateofSeptember30,1999,
conditions embodied in the two (2) itsduedatefallson
promissorynotes48 September3o,2009(andnot
2001aserroneouslystatedin
thecomplaint).Thus,prior
toSeptember30,2009,the
loanobligationscannotbe
deemeddueanddemandable.
In conditional obligations,
the acquisition of rights, as
well as the extinguishment
or loss of those already
acquired, shall depend upon
thehap
_______________
48Rollo,p.50.
713
VOL.642,FEBRUARY14,2011 713
PhilippineBankofCommunicationsvs.Go.
VOL.642,FEBRUARY14,2011 713
PhilippineBankofCommunicationsvs.Go.
peningoftheeventwhichconstitutesthecondition.(Article1181,New
CivilCode)
9. Contrary to the plaintiffs preference, defendant Jose C. Go has
madesubstantialpaymentsintermsofhismonthlypayments.Thereis
therefore, a need to do some accounting works (sic) just to reconcile
therecordsofbothparties.
10.Whiledemandisanecessaryrequirementtoconsiderthedefendant
tobeindelay/default,suchhasnotbeencompliedwithbytheplaintiff
sincetheformerisnotawareofanydemandmadetohimbythelatter
forthesettlementofthewholeobligation.
11. Undeniably, at the time the pledge of the shares of stocks were
executed,theirtotalvalueismorethantheamountoftheloan,oratthe
very least, equal to it. Thus, plaintiff was fully secured insofar as its
exposureisconcerned.49
12. And even assuming without conceding, that the present value of
saidshareshaswent(sic)down,itcannotbeconsideredassomething
permanentsince,thepricesof
_______________
49Id.,atp.59.
714
714 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
PhilippineBankofCommunicationsvs.Go.
714 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
PhilippineBankofCommunicationsvs.Go.
stocksinthemarketeitherincreases(sic)or(sic)decreases
dependingonthemarketforces.Thus,itishighlyspeculativeforthe
plaintifftoconsidersaidsharestohavesufferedtremendous
decreaseinitsvalue.Moreso(sic),itisunfairfortheplaintiffto
renounceorabandonthepledgeagreements.
13.Asaptlystated,itisnotawareofanyterminationofthepledge
agreementinitiatedbytheplaintiff.
Complaint Answer
10.Plaintiffmaderepeateddemandsfrom 10. While demand is a
(sic)defendantforthepaymentofthe necessary requirement to
obligationswhichthelatteracknowledged consider the defendant to be
tohaveincurredhowever,defendant in delay/default, such has
imposedconditionssuchas[that]his not been complied with by
[effecting]paymentsshalldependuponthe theplaintiffsincetheformer
liftingofgarnishmenteffectedbythe is not aware of any demand
BangkoSentralonhisaccounts. madetohimbythelatterfor
Photocopiesofdefendantscommunication the settlement of the whole
datedMarch3,2000 obligation.
715
VOL.642,FEBRUARY14,2011 715
PhilippineBankofCommunicationsvs.Go.
VOL.642,FEBRUARY14,2011 715
PhilippineBankofCommunicationsvs.Go.
Complaint Answer
9.Defendants outstanding 9.Contrary to the plaintiffs
obligations under the two (2) preference,defendantJoseC.Go
promissory notes as of May 31, 2001 has made substantial payments
are: P21,576,668.64 (Annex A) and in terms of his monthly
P95,991,111.11 (Annex B), or a payments. There is therefore, a
total of P117,567,779.75. Copy of the need to do some accounting
Statement of Account is hereto works just to reconcile the
attachedasAnnexEhereof.51 recordsofbothparties.52
Clearlythen,whentakenwithinthecontextoftheentiretyofthe
pleading,itbecomesapparentthattherewasnoim
_______________
50Id.,atp.50.
51Id.
52Id.,atp.59.
716
716 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
PhilippineBankofCommunicationsvs.Go.
716 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
PhilippineBankofCommunicationsvs.Go.
ItmustalsobepointedoutthatthecasescitedbyPBComdonot
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
documentsdeniedwerethesamedocumentsordeedssueduponor
madethebasisof,andattachedto,thecomplaint.
_______________
53Id.,atp.40.
54WarnerBarnes&Co.,Ltd.v.Reyes,103Phil.662,665(1958),citingIclePlant
EquipmentCo.v.Marcello,D.C.Pa.1941,43F.Supp.281.
717
VOL.642,FEBRUARY14,2011 717
PhilippineBankofCommunicationsvs.Go.
VOL.642,FEBRUARY14,2011 717
PhilippineBankofCommunicationsvs.Go.
InPhilippineBankofCommunicationsv.CourtofAppeals,55the
Court ruled that the defendants contention that it had no truth or
informationsufficienttoformabeliefastothetruthofthedeedof
exchangewasaninvalidorineffectualdenialpursuanttotheRules
of Court,56 as it could have easily asserted whether or not it had
executed the deed of exchange attached to the petition. Citing
CapitolMotorsCorporationsv.Yabut,57theCourtstatedthat:
xxxTheruleauthorizingananswertotheeffectthatthedefendanthas
noknowledgeorinformationsufficienttoformabeliefastothetruthofan
avermentandgivingsuchanswertheeffectofadenial,doesnotapplywhere
the fact as to which want of knowledge is asserted, is so plainly and
necessarilywithinthedefendantsknowledgethathisavermentofignorance
mustbepalpablyuntrue.58
The Warner Barnes case cited above sprung from a suit for
foreclosureofmortgage,wherethedocumentthatdefendantdenied
wasthedeedofmortgagesueduponandattachedtothecomplaint.
TheCourtthenruledthatitwouldhavebeeneasyforthedefendants
to specifically allege in their answer whether or not they had
executedtheallegedmortgage.
Similarly, in Capitol Motors, the document denied was the
promissory note sued upon and attached to the complaint. In said
case,theCourtruledthatalthoughastatementoflackofknowledge
orinformationsufficienttoformabeliefastothetruthofamaterial
avermentinthecomplaintwasoneofthemodesofspecificdenial
contemplatedundertheRules,paragraph2oftheAnswerinthesaid
casewasinsufficienttoconstituteaspecificdenial.59Followingthe
rulingintheWar
_______________
55PhilippineBankofCommunicationsv.CourtofAppeals,supranote32.
56Id.,atp.574.
57Id.
58Id.,citingWarnerBarnes&Co.,Ltd.v.Reyes,103Phil.662(1958).
59Id.
718
718 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
PhilippineBankofCommunicationsvs.Go.
718 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
PhilippineBankofCommunicationsvs.Go.
ner Barnes case, the Court held that it would have been easy for
defendanttospecificallyallegeintheAnswerwhetherornotithad
executedthepromissorynoteattachedtotheComplaint.60
In Morales v. Court of Appeals,61 the matter denied was
intervenorsknowledgeoftheplaintiffshavingclaimedownership
ofthevehicleincontention.TheCourtthereinstated:
_______________
60Id.
61274Phil.674,686197SCRA391(1991).
62Id., at p. 674 p. 404, citing Gutierrez v. Court of Appeals, 165 Phil. 752 74
SCRA127(1976)andWarnerBarnes&Co.v.Reyes,103Phil.662(1958).
719
VOL.642,FEBRUARY14,2011 719
PhilippineBankofCommunicationsvs.Go.
VOL.642,FEBRUARY14,2011 719
PhilippineBankofCommunicationsvs.Go.
Carpio(Chairperson),Nachura,PeraltaandAbad,JJ.,concur.
Petitiondenied.
Note.In summary judgments, the trial court can determine a
genuineissueonthebasisofthepleadings,admissions,documents,
affidavitsorcounteraffidavitssubmittedbytheparties.(Bitangavs.
Pyramid Construction Engineering Corporation, 563 SCRA 544
[2008])
o0o
Copyright2017CentralBookSupply,Inc.Allrightsreserved.