G.R. No. L-15123. April 25, 1961.
GENERAL SHIPPING COMPANY, INC., plaintiff-appellee, vs. SATURNINO C. PINOON, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

The plaintiff-appellee, General Shipping Company, Inc., filed an action in the Court of First Instance of Manila to recover from the defendant-appellant, Saturnino C. Pinoon, the sum of P12,012.33. The complaint alleged that Pinoon, as the company’s agent in Coron, Palawan, collected freight and fare monies totaling P13,873.38 from June 1954 to November 15, 1955, but failed to remit the full amount. It was further alleged that on November 15, 1955, Pinoon executed a promissory note acknowledging this indebtedness. After a partial payment of P1,861.05, a balance of P12,012.33 remained unpaid despite demand. Pinoon initially filed an answer and an amended answer, admitting the material averments of the complaint but contesting the claim for attorney’s fees.
Subsequently, Pinoon filed a motion for leave to file a Second Amended Answer. In this proposed pleading, he specifically denied the accuracy of the amount stated in the promissory note. He alleged that his actual collections amounted only to P10,240.62, and after deducting his partial payment, his true indebtedness was only P8,379.57. The trial court granted leave to admit the Second Amended Answer. Nevertheless, upon the appellee’s motion, the court proceeded to render a judgment on the pleadings, ordering Pinoon to pay the full amount claimed in the complaint. Pinoon appealed.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court erred in rendering a judgment on the pleadings after admitting the defendant’s Second Amended Answer, which tendered a specific issue of fact regarding the exact amount of the indebtedness.

RULING

Yes, the trial court erred. A judgment on the pleadings is proper only when, upon the facts admitted in the pleadings, the moving party is clearly entitled to judgment and no genuine issue of material fact exists. Here, the appellant’s Second Amended Answer, which the court properly admitted, raised a specific and substantive factual issue. He did not deny the existence of the debt or the promissory note’s genuineness and due execution, which he was not required to do under oath as the action was not exclusively based on the note but also on an account for collected sums. Crucially, he specifically denied the correctness of the total amount claimed, asserting that the promissory note erroneously included uncollected accounts and that his actual liability was significantly lower.
By pleading this specific denial and affirmative defense of payment in the sense of a lesser obligation, the appellant tendered a genuine issue of fact as to the precise sum owed. Under Sections 9 of Rule 9 and 5 of Rule 8 of the Rules of Court, a defendant is permitted to set forth all affirmative defenses, including matters in confession and avoidance. Once such an issue is joined, a judgment on the pleadings is no longer permissible, as the court must receive evidence to resolve the disputed fact. Therefore, the Supreme Court set aside the appealed judgment and remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings to receive evidence and determine the true amount of the appellant’s indebtedness.