This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2015-03-25 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| A judgment on the pleadings is a judgment on the facts as pleaded,[17] and is based exclusively upon the allegations appearing in the pleadings of the parties and the accompanying annexes.[18] It is settled that the trial court has the discretion to grant a motion for judgment on the pleadings filed by a party if there is no controverted matter in the case after the answer is filed.[19] A genuine issue of fact is that which requires the presentation of evidence, as distinguished from a sham, fictitious, contrived or false issue.[20] Come to think of it, under Rule 35, on Summary Judgments, Comglasco had recourse to move for summary judgment, wherein it could have adduced supporting evidence to justify its action on the parties' lease, but it did not do so. Section 2 of Rule 35 provides: Sec. 2. Summary judgment for defending party. - A party against whom a claim, counterclaim, or cross-claim is asserted or a declaratory relief is sought may, at any time, move with supporting affidavits, depositions or admissions for a summary judgment in his favor as to all or any part thereof. | |||||
|
2010-02-02 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| The trial court has the discretion to grant a motion for judgment on the pleadings filed by a party if there is no controverted matter in the case after the answer is filed.[7] A judgment on the pleadings is a judgment on the facts as pleaded,[8] and is based exclusively upon the allegations appearing in the pleadings of the parties and the accompanying annexes. | |||||
|
2005-02-17 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| We note now that (1) the RTC knew that the Answer asserted special and affirmative defenses; (2) the Court of Appeals recognized that certain issues were raised, but they were not genuine issues of fact; (3) petitioners insisted that they raised genuine issues; and (4) respondent argued that petitioners' defenses did not tender genuine issues. However, whether or not the issues raised by the Answer are genuine is not the crux of inquiry in a motion for judgment on the pleadings. It is so only in a motion for summary judgment.[14] In a case for judgment on the pleadings, the Answer is such that no issue is raised at all. The essential question in such a case is whether there are issues generated by the pleadings.[15] This is the distinction between a proper case of summary judgment, compared to a proper case for judgment on the pleadings. We have explained this vital distinction in Narra Integrated Corporation v. Court of Appeals,[16] thus, | |||||
|
2002-09-19 |
BELLOSILLO, J. |
||||
| bad faith, or patently unsubstantial.[50] To forestall summary judgment, it is essential for the non-moving party to confirm the existence of genuine issues where he has substantial, plausible and fairly arguable defense, i.e., issues of fact calling for the presentation of evidence upon which a reasonable findings of fact could return a verdict for the non-moving party although mere scintilla of evidence in support of the party opposing summary judgment will be insufficient to preclude entry thereof.[51] The proper inquiry would therefore be whether the affirmative defense offered by petitioner-spouses constitutes genuine issue of fact requiring a full-blown trial. We rule that the affirmative defense sets up a sham issue which justifies summary judgment. For one, petitioner-spouses have not explained how their affirmative defense, since it attempts to vary a written agreement, could be proved by admissible evidence. It would | |||||