In its complaint filed in the  Court of First Instance of Manila, the plaintiff alleges that on  1 September  1952 the defendant Philippine Leather Co., Inc.  applied for a  commercial letter  of  credit  in the sum of $14,814.80,  U. S. currency, under the terms and  conditions set forth  in  an application filed by the defendants in favor of the Turner Tanning Machinery Co. of Peabody, Massachusetts, U. S. A. to cover the full invoice value  of certain machineries and their accessories; that  on 3 October  1952 the  plaintiff approved the application "subject to 30%  deposit and the joint and  several signatures of Mr. Isidoro Tinoco and Mrs. Soledad  L. Basa"  which  conditions  were complied with; that on  8 October  1952,  the plaintiff issued Letter of  Credit No.  51469 in favor  of the Turner Tanning Machinery Company; that on 15 November  1952 the Turner Tanning  Machinery  Co., drew upon  the  letter of credit the sum of $14,549.17, U. S. currency; that upon  arrival in the Philippines of the machineries and their accessories imported  by the defendants, the plaintiff released them to the defendants under a trust receipt, that on 23 January 1953 the plaintiff presented to the defendants for payment the draft drawn by  the Turner Tanning  Machinery Co., upon  Letter of  Credit No.  51469 which was accepted  by them; that  after the draft had matured on 23 April 1953 the plaintiff made numerous demands upon the defendants to pay the amount of the draft and the charges due thereon but the defendants  failed and refused to pay; and that as  of 15  October 1983,  the outstanding  balance  of the defendants on the draft is P22,787.79, Philippine currency, plus interest thereon at the rate of P4.89135 daily until fully  paid.  It alleges further that on  30 January 1953 the defendant Philippine Leather Co., Inc., applied for a commercial  letter of credit  in the sum of  $2,587.50, U. S. currency,  under the terms and conditions  set forth in  an application  filed by the defendants in favor of  Bay State Chemical  Co., of Boston, Massachusetts, U. S. A.,  to pay for the importation of color dye; that the plaintiff approved the application "subject to 30% deposit and the joint and several signatures of Mr. Isidoro Tinoco and Mrs. Soledad L. Basa,"  which conditions were complied with; that thereafter  the  plaintiff issued Letter of Credit No. 53753  in favor  of the Bay State Chemical Co., that on  12  March 1953 the Bay State Chemical Co., drew upon the letter  of credit the sum of $2,482.40, U.  S. currency; that the draft drawn by the Bay State Chemical  Co., was presented by the plaintiff to the defendants for  payment; that the defendants failed and refused to pay the amount of the draft and the charges due  thereon; that because of the  failure and refusal  of the defendants to  pay their obligation, the plaintiff delivered the documents of the shipment  to the Luzon Brokerage  Co., and requested it to claim and store the shipment in its bonded  warehouse, for which service and storage the defendants  are liable  to the  Luzon Brokerage Co.; that  as of 15 October 1953; the  outstanding balance of the defendants on the draft is P4,503.05, Philippine currency, plus interest thereon at the rate of P0.83569 daily until fully paid.

The  plaintiff prays that after hearing judgment  be rendered  ordering the defendants to  pay  it the sum of P22,787.79, with  daily interest thereon at  the rate  of P4.89135  from 15 October 1953 until  fully paid; 10% of the said amount as attorney's  fee; P4,503.05,  with  daily interest thereon at the rate  of  P0.83569 from 15 October 1953 until  fully paid; the  amount of  storage and other charges that the Luzon Brokerage Co., would charge the plaintiff for the handling and storage of the merchandise imported  by the  defendants under Letter  of  Credit No. 53753;  and the costs  of  the suit.  The plaintiff further prays that pending hearing and final judgment, a writ of attachment be issued commanding the Sheriff  of the City of Manila to levy upon attachment on the properties of the defendants as security for the satisfaction of any judgment that it may secure against them.

In their answer filed on 28 December 1953  the defendants admit  the  plaintiff's  averments  except  as to  the correctness of the amounts  due on the two  drafts, the correctness of which  they  were  still  checking, and for that reason lacking sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth and veracity of the amounts due on the two drafts, they deny the amounts claimed by the plaintiff to be due from them.

On 25 June 1954 the plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment on  the  ground that since the defendants had admitted the material averments of its complaint except as to the correctness  of the amounts due, the defendants' answer did not tender a genuine issue.  The plaintiff attached to its motion an affidavit subscribed and sworn  to by Ceferino Saavedra, Manager of the Special Assets Department of the  plaintiff, in charge of all outstanding  accounts  of its debtors, stating the payments made by the defendants on their account and the exact total amount due from them.

On  7  October  1954 the  Court granted the  plaintiff's motion and rendered  judgment ordering the  defendants, jointly  and severally,  to pay

* * * the  plaintiff in the  first cause  of action,  the  amount  of P22,787.79, with a daily interest of P4.89135 from October 15, 1953 up to full payment  thereof; and  10%  of  the amount due  for attorney's  fees.  On the  second cause of action, defendants  shall pay,  jointly and  severally, the sum  of  P4,503.05, with a  daily interest  of P0.83569  from  October  15,  1953  until  full payment thereof.

Defendants shall also pay the costs.

The defendants appealed to the Court of Appeals.   The latter certified the case  to this  Court for the  reason that only questions of law  are raised. Rule  36 provides:

Section 1. Summary judgment for  claimant. A party seeking  to recover upon  a claim, counterclaim,  or cross-claim  or to obtain a declaratory relief  may,  at any time after the  pleading in answer thereto has been served, move with affidavits  for a  summary  judgment in  his favor upon all  or any part thereof.

SEC. 3. Motion  and proceedings thereon. The motion  shall be served at least ten days before the time specified for the hearing. The adverse party prior to the day of  hearing  may serve opposing affidavits.  The  judgment sought  shall be rendered  forthwith  if the pleadings, depositions,  and admissions  or  file, together with the affidavits, show  that,  except as  to the amount  of  damages,  there is no  genuine issue  as  to any of the  material  fact  and  that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter  of law.

SEC. 5. Form of affidavits. Supporting and  opposing affidavits shall be  made  on personal  knowledge, shall  set forth  such  facts as would be admissible in evidence, and  shall  show affirmatively that the affiant is competent to testify to the matters stated therein. Sworn or certified copies  of all papers of parts thereof referred to in  an affidavit shall be attached thereto or served therewith.

The defendants'  answer that as to  the first  cause of action they

*  * * are still  checking on  the correctness of the alleged balance outstanding against them and in favor of the plaintiff;  consequently, for lack of knowledge  or  information  sufficient to form a  belief as to the truth and veracity of the averments embodied in paragraph 7 thereof, they hereby specifically deny the allegations therein stated;

and that as  to  the second cause of  action  they

* * * are  checking on the  veracity and correctness  of the balance allegedly outstanding in favor of  the plaintiff manifested in  paragraph 6 of the same, they, by virtue thereof, specifically deny it for lack of knowledge and  belief as  to  the  truth of the allegations embodied in the aforestated paragraph.

does not  tender a genuine issue.   In fact they admit that they  are  indebted to the plaintiff.   As  the affidavit  subscribed and sworn to by the Manager of the Special Assets Department  of  the plaintiff, in charge  of all outstanding; accounts of its debtors, attached to the motion for summary judgment, furnishes the Court with the payments made by the defendants on their account and  the  amount due from them,  which they failed  to oppose by  counter  affidavits, the plaintiff is entitled to summary judgment.

The  judgment  appealed  from  is  affirmed, with  costs against the appellants.

Paras,  C. J.,  Bengzon, Montemayor, Reyes A., Bautista Angela, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes J. B. L., and Endencia, JJ., concur.