Villuga Vs Kelly
Villuga Vs Kelly
Facts:
On 3 March 1995, Kelly filed in RTC Bacoor a complaint for
sum of money against petitioners alleging that petitioners
made purchases of various construction materials from Kelly
worth P259.8K but did not pay in full despite several demands.
In their Answer, petitioners admitted the purchases but
alleged that they do not know the exact amount thereof, and
that they made payments of P130.3K. On 11 August 1995,
Kelly moved for partial judgment on the pleadings contending
that petitioners have impliedly admitted in their answer their
debt of P259.8K. Petitioners opposed the motion.
Issues:
1. Whether or not respondent waived its Request for
Admission when it filed its Second Amended Complaint;
that all motions or requests based on the complaint, which
was amended, should no longer be considered. [NO]
2. Whether or not summary judgment is improper considering
that genuine issues were raised in the pleadings filed by
petitioners. [NO]
Ruling:
Petition is Denied.
I.
The Court agrees with the CA in holding that respondent's
Second Amended Complaint supersedes only its Amended
Complaint and nothing more.
II.
The foregoing notwithstanding, the Court finds that the CA
was correct in sustaining the summary judgment rendered by
the RTC.
x x x When the pleadings on file show that there are no genuine issues of
fact to be tried, the Rules of Court allow a party to obtain immediate
relief by way of summary judgment, that is, when the facts are not in
dispute, the court is allowed to decide the case summarily by applying
the law to the material facts. Conversely, where the pleadings tender a
genuine issue, summary judgment is not proper. A "genuine issue" is
such issue of fact which requires the presentation of evidence as
distinguished from a sham, fictitious, contrived or false claim. Section 3
of [Rule 35 of the Rules of Court] provides two (2) requisites for
summary judgment to be proper: (1) there must be no genuine issue as
to any material fact, except for the amount of damages; and (2) the
party presenting the motion for summary judgment must be entitled to a
judgment as a matter of law. A summary judgment is permitted only if
there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and a moving party is
entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. A summary judgment is proper
if, while the pleadings on their face appear to raise issues, the affidavits,
depositions, and admissions presented by the moving party show that
such issues are not genuine.28