CASE DIGEST: PBCom vs. Spouses Go
G.R. No. 175514, February 14, 2011
PHILIPPINE BANK OF COMMUNICATIONS, Petitioner, v. SPOUSES JOSE C. GO and ELVY T. GO,, Respondents.
MENDOZA, J.:
FACTS:
Respondent Jose C. Go (Go) obtained two loans from PBCom, evidenced by two promissory notes. PBCom filed before the RTC a complaint for sum of money with prayer for a writ of preliminary attachment against Go and his wife, Elvy T. Go. It contended that the Spouses’ Answer interposed no specific denials on the material averments and moved for summary judgment.
The RTC granted PBCom’s motion in its Judgment. The CA reversed this, reasoning that the fact of default, the amount of the outstanding obligation, and the existence of a prior demand, which were all material to PBCom’s claim, were “hardly admitted.”
ISSUE: Whether or not the CA committed grave abuse of discretion.
HELD:
The petition is bereft of merit.
REMEDIAL LAW: Admission
The Court agrees with the CA that “[t]he supposed admission of defendants-appellants on the x x x allegations in the complaint is clearly not sufficient to justify the rendition of summary judgment in the case for sum of money, considering that there are other allegations embodied and defenses raised by the defendants-appellants in their answer which raise a genuine issue as to the material facts in the action.”
Taken within the context of the entirety of the pleading, it becomes apparent that there was no implied admission and that there were indeed genuine issues to be addressed.
Petition is DENIED.
PHILIPPINE BANK OF COMMUNICATIONS, Petitioner, v. SPOUSES JOSE C. GO and ELVY T. GO,, Respondents.
MENDOZA, J.:
FACTS:
Respondent Jose C. Go (Go) obtained two loans from PBCom, evidenced by two promissory notes. PBCom filed before the RTC a complaint for sum of money with prayer for a writ of preliminary attachment against Go and his wife, Elvy T. Go. It contended that the Spouses’ Answer interposed no specific denials on the material averments and moved for summary judgment.
The RTC granted PBCom’s motion in its Judgment. The CA reversed this, reasoning that the fact of default, the amount of the outstanding obligation, and the existence of a prior demand, which were all material to PBCom’s claim, were “hardly admitted.”
ISSUE: Whether or not the CA committed grave abuse of discretion.
HELD:
The petition is bereft of merit.
REMEDIAL LAW: Admission
The Court agrees with the CA that “[t]he supposed admission of defendants-appellants on the x x x allegations in the complaint is clearly not sufficient to justify the rendition of summary judgment in the case for sum of money, considering that there are other allegations embodied and defenses raised by the defendants-appellants in their answer which raise a genuine issue as to the material facts in the action.”
Taken within the context of the entirety of the pleading, it becomes apparent that there was no implied admission and that there were indeed genuine issues to be addressed.
Petition is DENIED.
