1. Judgment on the Pleadings (Rule 34)

Necessity of Trial<br>

General Rule: Judgment should not be rendered without trial on the material facts in the pleadings of the parties which are in good faith controverted.

Exceptions: When Trial is Unnecessary

• Judgment on the Pleadings
• Summary Judgment
• Judgment on Compromise
• Dismissal of Complaint WITH Prejudice
• Summary Procedure Cases
• Judgment on Facts Stipulated/Agreed Upon

2. JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS (Rule 34)

A judgment rendered by the court upon motion of the claimant OR plaintiff on the ground that an ANSWER fails to tender an issue, OR otherwise admits the material allegations of the adverse party’s pleading.

“Fails to tender an issue” and “otherwise admits the material allegations of the adverse party’s pleading?”

Judgment on the pleadings is proper when an answer fails to tender an issue, or otherwise admits the material allegations of the adverse party’s pleading. An answer fails to tender an issue if it does not comply with the requirements of a specific denial as set out in Sections 8 (actionable document denial under oath) and 10 (specific denial). Failure to deny such would result in the admission of the material allegations of the adverse party’s pleadings. (Asian Construction v. Sanneadle, G.R. No. 181676, June 11, 2014)

Sham denials, consisting of an avowed lack of knowledge of facts which could not but be clearly known by them, in effect tender no issue, or otherwise admit the allegations of the complaint material to a valid decision. (Manufacturer’s Bank v. Diversified, G.R. No. 33695, 1989)

Grounds:

• Answer fails to tender an issue because of:
• General denial of the material allegations of the complaint;
• Insufficient denial of the material allegations of the complaint; or
• Answer admits the material allegations of the adverse party’s pleading.

By moving for judgment on the pleading, plaintiff WAIVES his claim for unliquidated damages. Claim for such damages must be alleged and proved.

Note: The concept of a judgment on the pleadings will not apply when no answer is filed. (Riano, Civil Procedure: The Bar Lecture Series, Vol. 1, Bantam Ed, 2014)

Judgment on the pleading may be motu proprio or upon motion

Section 2. Action on motion for judgment on the pleadings. — The court may motu proprio or on motion render judgment on the pleadings if it is apparent that the answer fails to tender an issue, or otherwise admits the material allegations of the adverse party’s pleadings. Otherwise, the motion shall be subject to the provisions of Rule 15 of these Rules.

Any action of the court on a motion for judgment on the pleadings shall not be subject of an appeal or petition for certiorari, prohibition or mandamus

Effect of No Issue in a Case

It is proper for the court to render judgment on the pleadings, except in actions for declaration of nullity of annulment of marriage or legal separation. (Rule 34; Sec. 1).

Doctrines: Judgment on the Pleadings

Judgment on the pleadings is proper when an answer fails to tender an issue, or otherwise admits the material allegations of the adverse party’s pleadings. The defense of the defendant was that plaintiff was in bad faith. The courts ruled that the answer in fact tendered an issue hence judgment on the pleadings would be inapplicable. Summary judgment also cannot apply because the requirement for such is that there must not be a genuine issue. The plaintiff, in this case, prayed for an accounting which required a full blown trial (requires presentation of evidence on partial payment) hence, there was a genuine issue in the case at bar. (Sps. Ong v. Roban Lending, G.R. No. 172592, 2008)

This case was peculiar because the defendant was the one who moved for judgment on pleadings without offering proof as to the truth of her allegations and without giving the plaintiff opportunity to introduce evidence, the defendant is deemed to have admitted the material and relevant matters of the complaint. (Usually, it is the plaintiff who files a judgment on pleadings). (Sunbanun v. Go, G.R. No. 163280, 2010)

A Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is one that is considered ex parte because upon particular facts thus presented, the plaintiff is entitled to judgment, or motu proprio under Section 2 [g] of Rule 18 of the Rules of Court. (Dino v. Valencia, G.R. No. L-43886, 1989)

Judgment on the pleadings is appropriate when an answer fails to tender an issue, or otherwise admits the material allegations of the adverse party’s pleading.

An answer fails to tender an issue if it does not comply with the requirements of a specific denial as set out in Sections 8 and 10, Rule 8 of the Rules, resulting in the admission of the material allegations of the adverse party’s pleadings.

BERNABE: As such, it is a form of judgment that is exclusively based on the submitted pleadings without the introduction of evidence as the factual issues remain uncontroverted. (GSIS v. Prudential, G.R. No. 165585, 2013)

No Judgment on the Pleadings in Actions for

• Declaration of Nullity of Marriage;
• Annulment of marriage; and
• Legal Separation

In actions for declaration of nullity or annulment of marriage or for legal separation, the material facts alleged in the complaint shall always be proved (see Articles 48 and 60 of the Family Code). The purpose is to prevent collusion between the parties.

Affidavits in Bad Faith

It should it appear that the affidavits are:

• Presented in bad faith; or
• Solely for the purpose of delay.

The court shall order the offending party or counsel to pay to the other party the amount of reasonable expenses, which the filing of the affidavits caused him to incur, including attorney’s fees. It may, after hearing, further adjudge the offending party or counsel guilty of contempt. (Section 6, Rule 35)

Q: A, B, and C inherited a lot from their parents as co-owners. A TCT was issued in the name of C. A and B had filed a complaint against C for annulment of deed (Civil Case 1). C manifested that he had entered into a compromise agreement with his other siblings. And since no answer was received from C, the court concluded that a compromise agreement was forged among them, dismissing the case: The western portion to B; the middle portion to A and the eastern portion to C. However, said portions were never actually partitioned, leaving the title still registered in C’s name. A died leaving the lot to her son D by virtue of a Deed of Donation. D’s wife E owed F, an heir of C, evidenced by a Kasunduan. E’s heir, G, filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings. RTC found that judgment on the pleadings was proper and res judicata attached in the present case in view of the proceedings in Civil Case. 1) Did res judicata attach? 2) Can the grant of the motion for judgment on the pleadings be upheld?

A:

• No. The judgment or final order rendered by a Philippine court or judge, having jurisdiction to render the judgment or order, has the effect of res judicata or bar by prior judgment and conclusiveness of judgment. The requisites of res judicata are the following: (1) the former judgment must be final; (2) the court that rendered it had jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties; (3) it is a judgment on the merits; and (4) there is — between the first and the second actions — an identity of parties, subject matter and cause of action. Here, first there was no judgment on the merits in the prior case because there was no compromise agreement that was judicially approved, thus no judgment was entered in the prior case; Second, there is no identity of causes of action because the prior case concerned the ownership of the subject lot, whereas the present case also involves possession and consignation. Hence, res judicata may not be applied.
• Yes. Rule 34 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended by A.M. No. 19-10-20-SC, provides that Judgment on the pleadings is proper when an answer fails to tender an issue, or admits the material allegations of the adverse party's pleading. An answer fails to tender an issue if it does not comply with the requirements of a specific denial as set out in Rule 8 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended by A.M. No. 19-10-20-SC, resulting in the admission of the material allegations of the adverse party's pleadings. Here, F do not need to specifically deny under oath the genuineness and authenticity of the documents that they averted, otherwise F would be deemed to have admitted the same. Section 8 of Rule 8 states that "the requirement of an oath does not apply when the adverse party does not appear to be a party to the instrument” as in this case wherein the amicable settlement and deed of partition were only between the F’s father, aunt and uncle and the kasunduan between one of the plaintiffs and one of the defendants. (Abad v. Heirs of Gallardo, G.R. No. 229070, November 10, 2020)

Q: Bank A filed a Complaint for Specific Performance before the RTC against Corp B. Bank A alleged that it entered into an Agreement with Corp B agreeing to guarantee the payment of the obligation but later refusing to pay. In its Answer, Corp B invoked a Stay Order that was issued by the Rehabilitation Court. Bank A then filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. The RTC issued an Order granting Bank A’s Motion, stating that there was no genuine issue as to any material fact posed by Corp B with respect to the Guarantee Agreement, except in response to damages and therefore Bank A was entitled to judgment in its favor as a matter of law. Corp B deemed the assailed Order as a final order susceptible of appeal in which pure questions of law are involved and therefore, filed the instant Petition before the Supreme Court under Rule 45. 1) Did Corp B pursue the right mode of appeal and did the trial court err in granting the Motion for Summary Judgment? 2) Did the RTC err in in granting the Motion for Summary Judgment?

A:

• Yes. Corp B pursued the right mode of appeal under Rule 45. An order or resolution granting a Motion for Summary Judgment which fully determines the rights and obligations of the parties relative to the case and leaves no other issue unresolved, except the amount of damages, is a final judgment. In leaving out the final determination of the amount of damages, a summary judgment is not removed from the category of final judgments. It is clear that the assailed Order discussed the facts, law and arguments extensively, making an extensive assessments on the merit of the Complaint as well as making a definite adjudication. Thus, as a final order, Corp B was right to appeal under Rule 45.
• No. The trial court did not err in granting the Motion for Summary Judgment. According to Section 1, Rule 35 of the Rules of Court, a party seeking to recover upon a claim may, at any time after the pleading in answer thereto has been served, move with supporting affidavits, depositions or admissions for a summary judgment in his/her favor. According to Section 3 of the same Rule, the judgment sought shall be rendered forthwith if the pleadings, supporting affidavits, depositions, and admissions on file, show that, except as to the amount of damages, there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. There was no genuine issue raised as to a material fact. Corp B readily admitted it was bound by the Guarantee Agreement and could not raise any defense but the Stay Order, which did not prevent the court from acquiring jurisdiction. Therefore, as there was no genuine issue as to a material fact in the instant case, the RTC did not commit any error in holding that the respondent PVB was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. (Trade and Investment Development Corporation v. Philippine Veterans Bank, G.R. No. 233850, July 1, 2019)