G.R. No. L-57440 November 19, 1982
D. D. COMENDADOR CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. HON. MARCELINO N. SAYO as Presiding Judge of the Court of First Instance of Caloocan City, Branch XXXIII, and KHO ENG POE, doing business under the first name and style of PACER CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT, respondents.

FACTS

Private respondent Kho Eng Poe, doing business as Pacer Construction Equipment, supplied construction materials to petitioner D.D. Comendador Construction Corporation from October 1977 to July 1978, with a total value of P108,799.54. The only payment was a post-dated check for P24,455.00, which was dishonored upon presentment. After demands, private respondent filed a collection suit (Civil Case No. C-8242) and obtained a writ of preliminary attachment against petitioner’s equipment.
Petitioner filed an Answer, admitting the genuineness of the invoices evidencing the transactions but alleging an understanding that payment was dependent on the release of government funds due to petitioner. Private respondent then filed a Motion for Summary Judgment and/or Judgment on the Pleadings. The trial court, after receiving petitioner’s opposition, granted the motion for judgment on the pleadings in an Order dated March 3, 1981. Subsequently, the court rendered a decision ordering petitioner to pay the debt with interest and attorney’s fees. Petitioner appealed this decision to the Court of Appeals and simultaneously filed the instant Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition, challenging the interlocutory orders granting judgment on the pleadings.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent judge acted with grave abuse of discretion in granting the motion for judgment on the pleadings.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition. The legal logic proceeds from two key principles. First, the extraordinary writs of certiorari and prohibition are generally unavailable when the remedy of appeal exists. Here, petitioner had already appealed the main decision to the Court of Appeals. Any alleged infirmity in the interlocutory orders leading to that judgment, including the grant of judgment on the pleadings, could and should be raised in that pending appeal. The supervention of a final judgment, which was itself appealed, forecloses a separate certiorari challenge to the procedural orders preceding it.
Second, on the substantive merits, the grant of judgment on the pleadings was proper. A judgment on the pleadings is authorized when the answer fails to tender a genuine issue. Petitioner’s Answer admitted the factual basis of the debt—the invoices and the dishonored check. Its sole defense was an alleged understanding for payment contingent on government fund releases. The Court found this defense sham and not tender of a genuine issue. The act of issuing a post-dated check shortly after delivery contradicted the alleged contingent payment arrangement and affirmed the 30-day credit term stated in the invoices. Since the pleadings revealed no material factual controversy requiring a trial, the respondent judge correctly rendered judgment on the pleadings without abusing his discretion.