Monterey Foods Corp. v. Eserjose
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: For twelve years, respondent Victorino E. Eserjose purchased live cattle and hogs from petitioner Monterey Foods Corporation on credit terms payable within ten days, amassing an overdue account of P87,434,689.37, leading petitioners to cease transactions. Concurrently in 1998, parties entered a contract growing agreement where petitioner supplied livestock for respondent to grow, care for, and nurture on his Batangas farm. After five months, petitioner withdrew without payment, claiming respondent's failure to post a bond and poor farm management harming the animals. Respondent demanded P1,280,000.00 for services, unheeded, while petitioners counterclaimed on the separate sales debts. This dual contractual history—sales/distribution versus growing services—formed the backdrop of litigated claims. Procedural History: Respondent filed Civil Case No. Q-98-36421 for sum of money and damages against petitioners in RTC Quezon City, Branch 224. Petitioners answered admitting net compensation of P482,766.88 under growing contract but denying full claim. At pre-trial, petitioners defaulted; ex parte judgment awarded full amount, later lifted on motion for new trial. Post-new pre-trial, respondent moved for reverse trial based on admission; at hearing, petitioners confirmed liability in open court. Trial court issued partial summary judgment for P482,766.88, granted execution upon respondent's bond; denied reconsideration. Petitioners filed CA certiorari (SP No. 56305), dismissed November 21, 2001, motion for reconsideration denied. The Petition: Petitioners assailed CA for upholding non-final partial summary judgment execution, denying due process (ex parte motion, no hearing), invalid basis (mere bond insufficient), disregard of triable facts, and departure from procedure. They argued partial summary as interlocutory per Province of Pangasinan and Guevarra, counterclaim intertwined, no opportunity heard on execution motion.
Issue(s)
Whether partial summary judgment was final and executory, allowing writ of execution; whether certiorari proper against trial court's orders. Whether issuance violated due process and required written notice/hearing. Whether genuine triable issues existed precluding summary judgment. On bond and discretion regarding the execution of the partial summary judgment.
Ruling
The petition is DENIED for lack of merit. The Court of Appeals decision dated November 21, 2001 in CA-G.R. SP No. 56305, affirming RTC Orders directing execution of partial summary judgment in Civil Case No. Q-98-36421, is AFFIRMED.
Ratio Decidendi
On finality and executory nature of partial summary judgment: Summary judgment under Rule 35, Sec. 3 requires no genuine material fact issue (except damages) and legal entitlement to judgment; here, petitioners' Answer admission and open court confirmation (TSN Nov. 25, 1999, p. 66) of P482,766.88 liability, plus respondent's waiver of other claims (TSN pp. 27-29), left no triable issues on complaint, rendering judgment final per Santo Tomas University Hospital v. Surla (355 Phil. 804): it 'decisively puts to a close... leaving nothing else to be done.' Distinguished from Province of Pangasinan v. CA (220 SCRA 726) and Guevarra v. CA (124 SCRA 297) where partials did not dispose entire complaint; permissive counterclaims on separate sales were independent, not affecting main action finality. Execution issued as matter of right absent appeal; certiorari improper substitute (Rule 65). Liberal Rule 1, Sec. 6 construction secures speedy justice. On due process and procedural irregularities: Due process satisfied by hearing opportunity via pleadings/oral arguments (Alauya v. COMELEC); petitioners represented, actively reduced claim, agreed to judgment/execution post-bond (TSN pp. 42-50, 68-69), no opposition registered. Oral motion valid (Rule 15, Sec. 2); absent written 10-day notice mere irregularity, curable, not voiding merits (Galvez v. CA, 237 SCRA 685; Ley Construction v. Union Bank, 389 Phil. 788). No de riguer hearing needed if records suffice (Carcon Dev. Corp. v. CA); participation waived objections. Certiorari unavailing. On whether genuine triable issues existed precluding summary judgment: Summary judgment under Rule 35, Sec. 3 requires no genuine material fact issue (except damages) and legal entitlement to judgment; here, petitioners' Answer admission and open court confirmation (TSN Nov. 25, 1999, p. 66) of P482,766.88 liability, plus respondent's waiver of other claims (TSN pp. 27-29), left no triable issues on complaint. On bond and discretion: Bond secured execution, but finality—not discretion—governed; petitioners consented.
Main Doctrine
Summary judgment under Rule 35, Section 3 requires no genuine issue as to any material fact (except damages amount) and entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, aimed at promptly disposing of undisputed cases to avoid unnecessary trials. In this case, petitioners' judicial admission in their Answer and open court confirmation of liability for P482,766.88 under the contract growing agreement, coupled with respondent's waiver of all other claims, eliminated any triable issues on the complaint, rendering partial summary judgment final and dispositive of the entire main action. Such judgment is final when it 'puts to an end the adjudicative task of the court' on the complaint, distinguishing it from interlocutory partial summaries that leave substantial proceedings pending. Permissive counterclaims arising from separate transactions (e.g., prior sales of cattle/hogs) do not affect the finality of judgment on the main complaint, as they may be litigated independently. Due process is satisfied by opportunity to be heard via pleadings or oral arguments, even on ex parte motions for execution if irregularity is curable and parties actively participated, promoting liberal construction for just, speedy disposition.