Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

ASIAN CONSTRUCTION v. PHILIPPINE COMMERCIAL INTERNATIONAL BANK

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 209324 2015-12-09	REPUBLIC v. PILIPINAS SHELL PETROLEUM CORPORATION VILLARAMA, JR., J.
Trial courts have limited authority to render summary judgments and may do so only when there is clearly no genuine issue as to any material fact. When the facts as pleaded by the parties are disputed or contested, proceedings for summary judgment cannot take the place of trial.[49] As certain facts pleaded are contested by the parties in this case, rendition of summary judgment is not proper.
	GR No. 173128 2012-02-15	MARITIMEINDUSTRY AUTHORITY v. MARC PROPERTIES CORPORATION VILLARAMA, JR., J.
It must be stressed that trial courts have limited authority to render summary judgments and may do so only when there is clearly no genuine issue as to any material fact. When the facts as pleaded by the parties are disputed or contested, proceedings for summary judgment cannot take the place of trial.[31]As already stated, the burden of demonstrating clearly the absence of genuine issues of fact rests upon the movant, in this case the respondent, and not upon petitioners who opposed the motion for summary judgment. Any doubt as to the propriety of the rendition of a summary judgment must thus be resolved against the respondent. But here, the partial summary judgment was premised merely on the trial court's hasty conclusion that respondent is entitled to the reimbursement sought simply because petitioners failed to point out what particular works were not done or implemented not in accordance with MARINA's specifications after demands were made by respondent and the filing of the complaint in court. Precisely, a trial is conducted after the issues have been joined to enable herein respondent to prove, first, that repair/renovation works were actually done and such were in accordance with MARINA's request, and second, that it actually advanced the cost thereof by paying the contractors; and more importantly, to provide opportunity for the petitioners to scrutinize respondent's evidence, cross-examine its witnesses and present rebuttal evidence. Moreover, the trial court should have been more circumspect in ruling on the motion for summary judgment, taking into account petitioners' concern for judicious expenditure of public funds in settling its liabilities to respondent.
	GR No. 175291 2011-07-27	HEIRS OF NICOLAS S. CABIGAS v. MELBA L. LIMBACO BRION, J.
Under the Rules of Court, a summary judgment may be rendered where, on motion of a party and after hearing, 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." [18] The Court explained the concept of summary judgment in Asian Construction and Development Corporation v. Philippine Commercial International Bank: [19]
	GR No. 175514 2011-02-14	PHILIPPINE BANK OF COMMUNICATIONS v. SPS. JOSE C. GO AND ELVY T. GO MENDOZA, J.
Under the Rules, following the filing of pleadings, if, on motion of a party and after hearing, 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,"[37] summary judgment may be rendered. This rule was expounded in Asian Construction and Development Corporation v. Philippine Commercial International Bank,[38] where it was written: Under Rule 35 of the 1997 Rules of Procedure, as amended, except as to the amount of damages, when there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law, summary judgment may be allowed.[39] Summary or accelerated judgment is a procedural technique aimed at weeding out sham claims or defenses at an early stage of litigation thereby avoiding the expense and loss of time involved in a trial.[40]
	GR No. 155174 2009-08-04	D.M. CONSUNJI v. DUVAZ CORPORATION VELASCO JR., J.
Elaborating on the concept of a "genuine issue," we held in Asian Construction and Development Corporation v. Philippine Commercial Industrial Bank,[18] as follows: Under the Rules, summary judgment is appropriate when there are no genuine issues of fact which call for the presentation of evidence in a full-blown trial. Even if on their face the pleadings appear to raise issues, when the affidavits, depositions and admissions show that such issues are not genuine, then summary judgment as prescribed by the Rules must ensue as a matter of law. The determinative factor, therefore, in a motion for summary judgment, is the presence or absence of a genuine issue as to any material fact.
	GR No. 165164 2007-08-17	FIL-ESTATE PROPERTIES v. SPS. GONZALO QUISUMBING, J.
Worthy of note, in a previous case, Asian Construction and Development Corporation v. Philippine Commercial International Bank,[14] the Court had said that the 1997 financial crisis that ensued in Asia did not constitute a valid justification to renege on obligations. We emphatically stressed the same view in Mondragon Leisure and Resorts Corporation v. Court of Appeals,[15] that the Asian financial crisis in 1997 is not among the fortuitous events contemplated under Article 1174 of the Civil Code.