Carcon Development Corporation v. Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Univet Agricultural Products, Inc. (Univet) filed an action against Carcon Development Corporation (Carcon) to recover P31,853.25, representing the balance of the price of veterinary preparations and products sold and delivered by Univet to Carcon from December 1980 to July 1981. Univet attached invoices to its complaint. Carcon admitted the parties' circumstances and the purchase of goods through Univet's sales agent, Noli Itun. However, Carcon denied liability, alleging payment to Itun in hogs valued at P238,349.20, claiming Univet was indebted to it by P121,424.20, and set up a counterclaim for this amount. Procedural History: Univet filed a motion for summary judgment, attaching affidavits from its Marketing Director and Credit Supervisor, asserting that Itun was not authorized to accept payments in kind and that Itun was discharged for engaging in business for his own account. The motion included a notice of hearing for November 25, 1983. Carcon did not appear on the hearing date. The Trial Court issued an order giving Carcon ten (10) days to file an opposition, after which the motion would be deemed submitted for decision. Carcon filed an unverified opposition, claiming trial was needed due to genuine issues, that payment was made in kind to Itun without Univet issuing receipts, and that Univet's claim lacked a detailed statement. On December 12, 1983, the Trial Court rendered a summary judgment in favor of Univet, finding no genuine issue as to any material fact. The Court of Appeals affirmed this judgment. The Petition: This Court initially denied Carcon's petition for review on certiorari, stating only questions of fact were raised. Carcon filed a motion for reconsideration, which is now being resolved. Carcon's motion for reconsideration asks the Court to set aside its denial resolution.
Issue(s)
Whether the omission of the Trial Court to conduct a hearing on the motion for summary judgment renders the summary judgment void. Whether the issues raised in Carcon's Answer constitute genuine issues of fact requiring a trial on the merits.
Ruling
The motion for reconsideration is DENIED for lack of merit. The summary judgment rendered by the Trial Court, as affirmed by the Court of Appeals, is upheld.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of the necessity of a hearing for summary judgment: The Court reiterated that the theory of summary judgment is to dispense with a trial when it is demonstrated by affidavits, depositions, or admissions that the issues raised in the pleadings are not genuine but sham or fictitious. The Court noted that Univet complied with the requirement of serving the motion for summary judgment at least 10 days before the specified hearing. Although Carcon did not appear on the scheduled hearing date, the Trial Court, in compliance with Rule 34, Section 3, gave Carcon ten (10) days from notice to file opposing affidavits. Carcon submitted an unverified opposition without opposing affidavits. Since Carcon did not ask for a hearing or any additional relief after submitting its opposition, it implicitly acquiesced to the court's directive that the matter be deemed submitted for resolution. The Court emphasized that the hearing contemplated in summary judgment proceedings is for determining the genuineness of issues, not for receiving evidence on the merits of the case. While a hearing is not always mandatory and the court has discretion to determine its necessity, in this case, a hearing would have served no purpose and was clearly unnecessary. The summary judgment was justified by the absence of opposing affidavits to contradict the sworn declarations of Univet's officials, which effectively demonstrated that the issues raised in the answer were sham and not genuine. The Court cited the principle that the court is expected to act chiefly on the basis of the affidavits, depositions, and admissions submitted by the parties. On whether genuine issues were raised: The Court found that Carcon's opposition, being unverified and lacking opposing affidavits, failed to controvert the sworn assertions made by Univet's officials. These assertions clearly indicated that Noli Itun was not authorized to accept payments in kind on behalf of Univet and that the deliveries of hogs were made to Itun in his personal capacity. The claim of payment in kind was thus demonstrated to be a sham issue, as Carcon did not present any evidence to substantiate its defense of payment to Univet. The lack of a detailed statement of the debt by Univet, as claimed by Carcon, did not create a genuine issue of fact given the attached invoices and the affidavits presented by Univet. Therefore, the Trial Court was justified in rendering a summary judgment.
Main Doctrine
A summary judgment is justified when the pleadings, affidavits, and supporting papers demonstrate that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact, even if the answer appears to tender issues, provided these issues are shown to be sham or fictitious. A hearing on a motion for summary judgment is not always mandatory and may be dispensed with if the court, in its discretion, deems it unnecessary, especially when the opposing party fails to submit counter-affidavits or raise genuine issues.