7/24/2019 PBCom vs. Sps. Go

1/2

Name: Anna Kathrina Fernandez

Case: Philippine Bank of Communications vs. Spouses Jose C. o and !lv" #. o

.$. No. %&''%( Fe)ruar" %(* +,%%-a/Su)0ect: $ule 1

FAC#S:

2n Septem)er 3,* %444 Spouses o secured to loans from PBCom evidenced

)" to promissor" notes. #he loan as pa"a)le for ten "ears and secured )" to pled5ea5reements coverin5 shares of stocks in !ver otesco $esources and 6oldin5s 7nc. #o

"ears later* hoever* the shares of stock plun5ed to less than ,.,( per share* as a result*

PBCom* as pled5ee* notified o in ritin5 on June %'* +,,, that it as renouncin5 the

pled5e a5reements. #hereafter the )ank alle5in5 that Spouses o defaulted on the to 8+9promissor" notes* havin5 paid onl" three 839 installments on interest pa"ments coverin5

the months of Septem)er* Novem)er and ecem)er %444* filed a complaint for sum of

mone". Conse;uentl"* the entire )alance of the o)li5ations of o )ecame immediatel"

due and demanda)le.

2n the other hand* Spouses o filed their Anser ith Counterclaimden"in5 the

material alle5ations in the complaint and statin5* amon5 other matters* that:

1. #he promissor" note referred to in the complaint e

7/24/2019 PBCom vs. Sps. Go

2/2

2n Septem)er +1* +,,% PBCom filed a verified motion for summar" 0ud5ment

alle5in5 that the Spouses o=s Anser interposed no specific denials on the material

averments in para5raphs 1 to %% of the complaint such as the fact of default* the entireamount )ein5 alread" due and demanda)le )" reason of default* and the fact that the )ank

had made repeated demands for the pa"ment of the o)li5ations. Spouses o* on the other

hand* opposed the motion for summar" 0ud5ment ar5uin5 that the" had tendered 5enuinefactual issues callin5 for the presentation of evidence. #he $#C 5ranted the motion hile

CA reversed the 0ud5ment and remanded the case to the court of ori5in for trial on the

merits.

7SS?!:

>hether or not summar" 0ud5ment is in order despite the une;uivocal admissions

made )" the defendants in their pleadin5.

$?-7N: 6!-

$ule 1* Section %, of the $ules of Civil Procedure contemplates three 839 modesof specific denial* namel": %9 )" specif"in5 each material alle5ation of the fact in thecomplaint* the truth of hich the defendant does not admit* and henever practica)le*

settin5 forth the su)stance of the matters hich he ill rel" upon to support his denial

8+9 )" specif"in5 so much of an averment in the complaint as is true and material andden"in5 onl" the remainder 839 )" statin5 that the defendant is ithout knoled5e or

information sufficient to form a )elief as to the truth of a material averment in the

complaint* hich has the effect of a denial

PBCom anchors its ar5uments on the alle5ed implied admission )" Spouses o

resultin5 from their failure to specificall" den" the material alle5ations in the Complaint*

citin5 as precedent Philippine Bank of Communications v. Court of Appeals* andMoralesv. Court of Appeals. Spouses o* on the other hand* ar5ue that althou5h admissions ere

made in the Anser* the special and affirmative defenses contained thereintendered

5enuine issues.

Ju