Pascual v. First Consolidated Rural Bank (Bohol) Inc.

Summary judgments
G.R. No. Ponente Date
202597 February 08, 2017
Petitioners Respondents
SPOUSES SERGIO C. FIRST CONSOLIDATED RURAL BANK (BOHOL), INC.,
PASCUAL AND EMMA ROBINSONS LAND CORPORATION AND ATTY. ANTONIO P.
SERVILLION PASCUAL ESPINOSA, REGISTER OF DEEDS, BUTUAN CITY

DOCTRINE: Although motions for summary judgment can be filed before the pre-trial, their non-
resolution prior to the pre-trial should not prevent the holding of the pre-trial.

I. FACTS:

 The petitioners filed a petition for annulment of judgment in the Court of Appeals
(CA) in order to nullify and set aside the decision rendered in Special Proceedings
by the Regional Trial Court in Butuan City (RTC) ordering the cancellation of their
notice of lis pendens recorded of the Register of Deeds of Butuan City.1

 After the responsive pleadings to the petition were filed, the CA scheduled the
preliminary conference and ordered the parties to file their respective pre-trial
briefs. Instead of filing their pre-trial brief, the petitioners filed a Motion for
Summary Judgment and a Motion to Hold Pre-Trial in Abeyance. At the scheduled
preliminary conference, the petitioners and their counsel did not appear.

 The CA promulgated the first assailed resolution dismissing the petition for
annulment of judgment, stating that failure to file the pre-trial brief shall have the
same effect as failure to appear at the pre-trial.

 Petitioners, instead of complying with our order, filed the twin motions, averring
that it behooves us to rule first on their motions before pre-trial could be
conducted, "especially with the incompatibility of a pending Motion for Summary
Judgment vis-a-vis the conduct of pre-trial conference."

 Considering that a Petition for Annulment of Judgment is an original action before the Court of
Appeals, pre-trial is mandatory, per Section 6 of Rule 47 of the Rules of Court, whereby the
failure of the plaintiff to appear would mean dismissal of the action with prejudice. The filing of
a pre-trial brief has the same import.

 In fact, contrary to petitioners' assertion, it is only at the pre-trial that the rules
allow the courts to render judgment on the pleadings and summary judgment.

 It is not for the petitioners to arrogate whether or not pre-trial may be suspended
or dispensed with, or that their motions be resolved first, as the same are
discretionary upon the court taking cognizance of the petition. Furthermore, their
failure to furnish private respondent Robinsons Land Corporation a copy of

atienza, stella
 their Motion for Reconsideration of our denial of their TRO and/or WPI, and to
submit proof of service thereof to this court is tantamount to failure to obey lawful
orders of the court.

 This we cannot countenance. Strict compliance with the Rules is indispensable for
the prevention of needless delays and the promotion of orderly and expeditious
dispatch of judicial business. Hence, petitioners' failure to comply with our
directives merits dismissal of their petition.

 The Supreme Court has invariably ruled that while "litigation is not a game of
technicalities," it is equally important that every case must be prosecuted in
accordance with the procedure to insure an orderly and speedy administration of
justice.6 chanroble svirtuallaw lib rary

 Aggrieved, the petitioners filed their Motion for Reconsideration (on the Resolution
dated 16 November 2011),7 which the CA denied for being filed out of
time.8 Unrelenting, they presented a Respectful Motion for Reconsideration (on the
Resolution dated 9 January 2012), which the CA also denied.

 Hence, this appeal by petition for review on certiorari.

II. Issue/s

Whether the CA erred in declaring that "it is only at the pre-trial that the rules allow the
courts to render judgment on the pleadings and summary judgment. (YES)

III. Ratio/Legal Basis


The SC consider it erroneous on the part of the CA to declare that "it is only at the
pre-trial that the rules allow the courts to render judgment on the pleadings and
summary judgment, as provided by Section 2(g) of Rule 18 of the Rules of Court."
The filing of the motion for summary judgment may be done prior to the pre-trial.
Section 1, Rule 35 of the Rules of Court permits a party seeking to recover upon
a claim, counterclaim, or cross-claim or seeking declaratory relief to file the motion
for a summary judgment upon all or any part thereof in his favor (and its
supporting affidavits, depositions or admissions) "at any time after the pleading in
answer thereto has been served;" while Section 2 of Rule 35 instructs that a party
against whom a claim, counterclaim, or cross-claim is asserted or a declaratory
relief is sought may file the motion for summary judgment (and its supporting
affidavits, depositions or admissions) upon all or any part thereof "at any time."
As such, the petitioners properly filed their motion for summary judgment prior to
the pre-trial (assuming that they thereby complied with the requirement of
supporting affidavits, depositions or admissions).

 The SC remind that the summary judgment is a procedural technique that is proper
under Section 3, Rule 35 of the Rules of Court only if there is no genuine issue as
to the existence of a material fact, and that the moving party is entitled to a

atienza, stella
 judgment as a matter of law.15 It is a method intended to expedite or promptly
dispose of cases where the facts appear undisputed and certain from the
pleadings, depositions, admissions, and affidavits on record.16 The term genuine
issue is defined as an issue of fact that calls for the presentation of evidence as
distinguished from an issue that is sham, fictitious, contrived, set up in bad faith
and patently unsubstantial so as not to constitute a genuine issue for trial. The
court can determine this on the basis of the pleadings, admissions, documents,
affidavits, and/or counter-affidavits submitted by the parties to the court. Where
the facts pleaded by the parties are disputed or contested, proceedings for a
summary judgment cannot take the place of a trial.17 The party moving for the
summary judgment has the burden of clearly demonstrating the absence of any
genuine issue of fact.18 Upon the plaintiff rests the burden to prove the cause of
action, and to show that the defense is interposed solely for the purpose of delay.
After the plaintiffs burden has been discharged, the defendant has the burden to
show facts sufficient to entitle him to defend.19

The CA could have misconceived the text of Section 2(g), Rule 18 of the Rules of
Court.

 To be clear, the rule only spells out that unless the motion for such judgment has
earlier been filed the pre-trial may be the occasion in which the court considers
the propriety of rendering judgment on the pleadings or summary judgment If no
such motion was earlier filed, the pre-trial judge may then indicate to the proper
party to initiate the rendition of such judgment by filing the necessary motion.
Indeed, such motion is required by either Rule 3420 (Judgment on the Pleadings)
or Rule 3521 (Summary Judgment) of the Rules of Court. The pre-trial judge
cannot motu proprio render the judgment on the pleadings or summary judgment
In the case of the motion for summary judgment, the adverse party is entitled to
counter the motion.

 Even so, the petitioners cannot validly insist that the CA should have first resolved
their Motion for Summary Judgment before holding the pre trial. They could not
use the inaction on their motion to justify their nonappearance with their counsel
at the pre-trial, as well as their inability to file their pre-trial brief. In that regard,
their appearance at the pre-trial with their counsel was mandatory.

 The petitioners argue that their non-appearance was not mandatory, positing that
Section 2(g), Rule 18 of the Rules of Court had been amended by Administrative
Circular No. 3-99 and A.M. No. 03-1-09-SC. The petitioners' argument was
unwarranted.

 A.M. No. 03-1-09-SC (Guidelines to be Observed by Trial Court Judges and Clerks
of Court in the Conduct of Pre-Trial and Use of Deposition-Discovery Measures) -
adopted for the purpose of abbreviating court proceedings, ensuring the prompt
disposition of cases, decongesting court dockets, and further implementing the
pre-trial guidelines laid down in Administrative Circular No. 3-99 - similarly
underscored the mandatory character of the pre-trial, and reiterated under its
heading Pre-Trial in civil cases that, among others, the trial court could then
determine "the propriety of rendering a summary judgment dismissing the case
based on the disclosures made at the pre-trial or a judgment based on the

atienza, stella
 pleadings, evidence identified and admissions made during pre-trial."22 As such,
they could have urged the trial court to resolve their pending Motion for Summary
Judgment during the pre-trial.

IV. Disposition

atienza, stella