Judgment on the Pleadings and Summary Judgment –
Gregorio Estrada filed a complaint for damages against Uy
What can the trial court consider in determining the
propriety of rendering summary judgment
G.R. No. L-40948 – Estrada vs. Consolacion (1976)
Antonio, J.
There was a vehicular accident resulting in the death of one of
the passenger’s of the jeep. The husband of the passenger who
died filed a complaint for damages against the jeep’s owner and
driver alleging breach of contract of carriage. Defendants filed an
answer and moved for summary judgment. The trial court issued
an order worded as if it were a summary judgment. The SC ruled
that such order was a mere interlocutory order directing that a
hearing be conducted for the purpose of ascertaining the amount
or the assessment of damages which may be adjudged in favor
of the prevailing party. It is a determination of the court of a
preliminary point or directing some steps in the proceedings, but
not a disposition of the merits.
DOCTRINE
The test of a motion for summary judgment is whether the
pleadings, affidavits and exhibits in support of the motions are
sufficient to overcome the opposing papers and to justify a finding
as a matter of law that there is no defense to the action or the
claim is clearly meritorious.
FACTS
1. Simeona Estrada, was a passenger of the AC Jeep owned
and operated by defendant Corazon Ramirez Uy and driven
by defendant Lucio Galaura. The jeep bumped a Ford pick-up
truck along Claro M. Recto Ave., and as a result, Simeona
sustained a fractured left humerus, fat (pulmonary) embolism
and shock due to respiratory failure. She was brought to the
San Pedro Hospital where she died.
2.
and Galaura, owner and driver, respectively, of the jeep, for
breach of their obligations as a common carrier, in view of the
death of his wife.
a. Alleged that the owner failed to safely conduct the
plaintiff's wife to her place of destination by reason on
her "failure to exercise even the diligence of a good
father of a family" and her "gross and evident bad faith,
malevolence and wantonness" in discharging her
obligation as a common carrier
3. Defendants Uy and Galaura filed their Answer:
a. Admitted that plaintiff's wife was a passenger and that
she died as a result of the accident,
b. Alleged that the proximate and only cause of the
accident was the negligence of third persons, (the
drivers of the trucks which the jeep collided with,) over
whom Uy had no supervision and control, and who
were then driving their respective vehicles at a fast rate
of speed and from different directions causing the
collision.
c. Set up a counterclaim for damages by reason of
plaintiff's institution of the clearly unfounded suit
against them.
4. Uy and Galaura filed a motion for summary judgment
against Estrada on the ground that there is no genuine issue
as to any material fact in the case except as to the amount of
damages they are seeking from him by way of counterclaim.
They annexed the ff. to the motion:
a. The sketch of the accident made by the Traffic
Investigator
b. Said investigator's affidavit detailing his findings
upon investigation
c. The respective sworn statements of the drivers of
the two pick-ups wherein each driver respectively
claimed that he exercised due care but attributed to the
other negligence as the cause of the collision; and
d. The sworn statement of defendant driver (Galaura)
of said Jeep detailing what he did in order to prevent
1
 or minimize damages to his vehicle and his
passengers, marked as Annex "7" of defendants'
answer.
5. By the foregoing annexes, Uy and Galaura sought to prove
that they were relieved of any liability to Estrada inasmuch as
the accident which caused the death of his wife "resulted from
the negligence of third persons over whom defendants had no
supervision or control.”
6. Estrada opposed the motion for summary judgment relying on
the presumption that in case of death of the passenger, the
common carrier is presumed "to have been at fault or to have
acted negligently," unless the carrier proves that he has
observed extraordinary diligence with due regard to all the
circumstances, which movants failed to do.
7. Notwithstanding the opposition filed by the plaintiffs,
respondent Judge issued summary judgment:
“The Court has considered at length and thoroughly the
pleadings in the action, the affidavits and other pertinent
annexes (Annexes 1 to 6), of the movants, and has found that
there is no genuine issue as to material fact and no
controversial question of fact to be submitted to the trial court,
and has concluded that defendants are entitled to a judgment
as a matter of law except as to the amount of damages
recoverable.
It is therefore ordered and decreed that defendants have
judgment summarily against the plaintiff for such amount as
may be found due them for damages, to be ascertained by
trial upon that issue alone on June 9, 1975 at 8:30 a.m.”
8. Estrada filed an MR on the ground that said Order failed to
state clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on which it is
based, thus violating the Constitution and the Rules of Court.
a. This was denied, hence this present petition for
certiorari with prohibiton.
ISSUE with HOLDING
1. W/N trial judge erred in granting the Motion for Summary
Judgment – NO
a. Under the Rules, A party against whom a claim,
counterclaim, or crossclaim is asserted or a declaratory
relief is sought may, at any time, move with supporting
affidavits for a summary judgment in his favor as to all
or any part thereof
b. If the moving party the defendant, the pleadings,
depositions, and affidavits must be sufficient to defeat
the claim of the plaintiff. The affidavit submitted by the
party moving for summary judgment shall be by
persons having personal knowledge of the facts; it shall
recite all material facts and show that there is no
defense to the cause of action or that the cause of
action has no merits
c. After being served the Motion and supporting
documents at least 10 days before the hearing, the
plaintiff may serve opposing affidavits, sufficient to
defeat the Motion for Summary Judgment.
d. After hearing, the Motion will be granted if on the basis
of all the papers and proofs submitted, the cause of
action or defense shall be established sufficiently to
warrant the court as a matter of law in directing
judgment in favor of any party. The motion shall be
denied if any party shall show facts sufficient to require
a trial of any issue of fact other than an issue as to the
amount or extent of the damages.
e. Summary judgment or accelerated judgment is a
procedure resorted to in order to weed out sham
defenses or claims, avoiding unnecessary litigation
during trial, it is meant to ensure that only what is
substantial and not merely formal or pretended is
litigated.
f. In hearing a Motion for Summary Judgment, the judge
is asked not to try the issue but to determine whether
the issue is meritorious. Summary Judgment should
not be granted if there is a triable issue. The court is
2
 not called to pass upon the evidence, and conduct a
full-blown trial on the merits.
g. The test, therefore, of a motion for summary judgment
is whether the pleadings, affidavits and exhibits in
support of the motions are sufficient to overcome the
opposing papers and to justify a finding as a matter of
law that there is no defense to the action or the claim
is clearly meritorious.
h. In Motions for Summary Judgment, the plaintiff must
prove that there is a cause of action, and that the
defense is interposed merely to delay the proceedings.
Once this burden is discharged, it is up to the
defendant to show facts entitling him to a defense on
the merits.
i. In this case:
i. When injury arises during the course of being
transported under a Contract of Carriage, there
is a presumption of fault on the part of the
common carrier, which can only be overcome if
the Common Carrier proves that it exercised
extraordinary diligence or if is able to show that
the injury was caused by a fortuitous event.
ii. In order to constitute a fortuitous event that
would exempt a person from responsibility, it is
necessary that
1. the event must be independent of the
human will;
2. the occurrence must render it impossible
for the obligor to fulfill his obligation in a
normal manner; and
3. the obligor must be free of a concurrent
or contributory fault or negligence.
iii. Here, the defendants were able to show through
the supporting documents attached to its Motion
for Summary Judgment, that the injury was
caused by a fortuitous event, namely the
collision of the two pickup trucks which caused
one of the trucks to hit the jeep.
iv. It was thus incumbent on Estrada, the plaintiff,
to rebut the proof presented by the defendants
in order to sustain his claim. Estrada failed to
controvert the evidence which shows that
incident was caused by factors outside the
defendants’ control and that they were free of
contributory negligence.
j. The present petition is premature, since the order of
the Judge was interlocutory (as it set a date for hearing
with regard to damages due), the remedy available to
plaintiff is to move for the setting aside of the order by
the presentation of opposing affidavits showing that,
other than the issue as to the amount or extent of
damages, there is a genuine issue of fact on the
carrier's liability.
DISPOSITIVE PORTION
ACCORDINGLY, the petition for certiorari with prohibition is
dismissed, without special pronouncement as to costs.
SEPARATE OPINION
Barredo, J., concurring
1. This decision does not mean that the Court is upholding
the questioned order as the summary. The said order must
be construed as nothing but an interlocutory one holding
that respondents have sufficiently established the bases
for a summary judgment, which will be rendered after the
court has received and duly evaluated the evidence as to
the amount of damages that should be awarded to them
for their counterclaim.
2. Summary judgment vs. Judgment on the pleadings
a. The basic reason for judgment on the pleadings is
that the allegations in the pleadings of the
contending parties show that there is no
controversy at all between them as to the facts.
b. In summary judgment procedure, it is assumed
precisely that in their pleadings, the parties have
3
 joined issues on the ultimate facts, at least, but just
the same, trial is foreclosed because the factual
issues thus joined do not appear to be genuine,
meaning to say, they are not real but sham.
i. A factual issue raised by a party is
considered as sham when by its nature it is
evident that it cannot be proven or it is such
that the party tendering the same has neither
any sincere intention nor adequate evidence
to prove it.
ii. This usually happens in denials made by
defendants merely for the sake of having an
issue and thereby gaining delay, taking
advantage of the fact that their answers are
not under oath anyway
3. When the party against whom a summary judgment is
asked fails to submit counter- affidavits to support the
opposition and, on the other hand, the facts alleged by the
moving party, confirmed in the sworn statements
submitted with the motion, do not appear to be by their
very nature false or not susceptible to proof, a summary
judgment is reasonably, if not undeniably, proper.
4. The questioned order is not entirely erroneous but only
improperly worded and is merely an interlocutory one and
is not a final appealable judgment.
a. It should not have been worded as "decreeing that
defendants have judgment summarily against
plaintiff", for the real summary judgment is not only
supposed to be rendered after the proof of
damages shall have been presented, but it should
also state clearly and distinctly the facts and the law
on which it is based even when it renders a
summary judgment.
DIGESTER: Liana
GRAND FARMS, INC. and PHILIPPINE SHARES CORP. v. CA
[RTC presiding judge, RTC clerk of court, & deputy sheriff-in-
charge] (BANCO FILIPINO SAVINGS AND MORTGAGE BANK)
193 SCRA 748
REGALADO; Feb. 7, 1991
NATURE
Appeal from the decision of CA, which found no grave abuse of
discretion on the part of respondent judge in denying petitioners'
motion for summary judgment
FACTS
- Petitioners filed Civil Case No. 2816-V-88 in the Regional Trial
Court of Valenzuela, Metro Manila for annulment and/or
declaration of nullity of the extrajudicial foreclosure proceedings
over their mortgaged properties, with damages, against
respondents clerk of court, deputy sheriff and herein private
respondent Banco Filipino Savings and Mortgage Bank.
- After the bank filed its answer, petitioners requested an
admission by the bank that no formal notice of intention to
foreclose the real estate mortgage was sent by the bank to
petitioners.
- The bank responded and said that petitioners were notified of
the auction sale by the posting of notices and the publication of
notice in the Metropolitan Newsweek, a newspaper of general
circulation in the province where the subject properties are
located and in the Philippines.
- On the basis of implied admission that no formal notice was
served personally, petitioners filed a motion for summary
judgment contending that the foreclosure was violative of the
provisions of the mortgage contract, specifically paragraph (k)
thereof which provides:
"k) All correspondence relative to this Mortgage, including
demand letters, summons, subpoena or notifications of any
judicial or extrajudical actions shall be sent to the Mortgagor at
the address given above or at the address that may hereafter be
given in writing by the Mortgagor to the Mortgagee, and the mere
act of sending any correspondence by mail or by personal
4
delivery to the said address shall be valid and effective notice to
the Mortgagor for all legal purposes, and the fact that any
communication is not actually received by the Mortgagor, or that
it has been returned unclaimed to the Mortgagee, or that no
person was found at the address given, or that the address is
fictitious, or cannot be located, shall not excuse or relieve the
Mortgagor from the effects of such notice;"
- The bank opposed the motion saying that based on other
paragraphs (b and d) in the contract, the mortgagor authorized
extra-judicial sale upon breach of contract and that the
mortgagee was appointed atty-in-fact with full powers upon any
breach of the obligations in the contract.
- The RTC issued an order denying petitioners' motion for
summary judgment. MFR was also denied on the ground that
genuine and substantial issues exist which require the
presentation of evidence during the trial.
- Petitioners filed a petition for certiorari to CA attacking said
orders of denial as having been issued with grave abuse of
discretion. CA dismissed the petition, holding that no personal
notice was required to foreclose since private respondent was
constituted by petitioners as their attorney-in-fact to sell the
mortgaged property. It further held that paragraph (k) of the
mortgage contract merely specified the address where
correspondence should be sent and did not impose an additional
condition on the part of private respondent to notify petitioners
personally of the foreclosure. CA also denied petitioners MFR.
ISSUES
WON summary judgment was proper
HELD
YES.
Ratio The Rules of Court authorize the rendition of a summary
judgment if the pleadings, depositions and admissions on file,
together with the affidavits, show that, except as to the amount of
damages, there is no issue as to any material fact and that the
moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. Although
an issue may be raised formally by the pleadings but there is no
genuine issue of fact, and all the facts are within the judicial
knowledge of the court, summary judgment may be granted.
The real test, therefore, of a motion for summary judgment is
whether the pleadings, affidavits and exhibits in support of the
motion are sufficient to overcome the opposing papers and to
justify a finding as a matter of law that there is no defense to the
action or that the claim is clearly meritorious.
Reasoning Private respondent tacitly admitted in its answer to
petitioners' request for admission that it did not send any formal
notice of foreclosure to petitioners. Stated otherwise, and as is
evident from the records, there has been no denial by private
respondent that no personal notice of the extrajudicial foreclosure
was ever sent to petitioners prior thereto. This omission, by itself,
rendered the foreclosure defective and irregular for being
contrary to the express provisions of the mortgage contract.
There is thus no further necessity to inquire into the other issues
cited by the trial court, for the foreclosure may be annulled solely
on the basis of such defect.
- In Community Savings & Loan Association, Inc., et al. vs. Court
of Appeals, at al., the SC held that the stipulation is the law
between [the parties] and as it not contrary to law, morals, good
customs and public policy, the same should be complied with
faithfully (Art. 1306 CC). Thus, while publication of the foreclosure
proceedings in the newspaper of general circulation was
complied with, personal notice is still required, when the same
was mutually agreed upon by the parties as additional condition
of the mortgage contract. Failure to comply with this additional
stipulation would render illusory Art. 1306. And as the record is
bereft of any evidence which even impliedly indicate that the
required notice of the extrajudicial foreclosure was ever sent to
the debtor-mortgagor, the extrajudicial foreclosure proceedings
on the property in question are fatally defective and are not
binding on the debtor-mortgagor.
- To still require a trial notwithstanding private respondent's
admission of the lack of such requisite notice would be a
superfluity and would work injustice to petitioners whose
obtention of the relief to which they are plainly and patently
5
entitled would be further delayed. That undesirable contingency
is obviously one of the reasons why our procedural rules have
provided for summary judgments.

Disposition The decision appealed from is hereby REVERSED

and SET ASIDE and this case is REMANDED to the court of
origin for further proceedings in conformity with this decision.