GR 120010; (October, 2002) (Digest)
G.R. No. 120010 ; October 3, 2002
SOLIDBANK CORPORATION (a.k.a. The Consolidated Bank & Trust Corp.), petitioner, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, CENTRAL BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, and FAR EAST BANK & TRUST COMPANY, respondents.
FACTS
Pacific Banking Corporation (PBC) was placed under receivership and liquidation. The Central Bank invited bids for PBC’s assets and franchise. Far East Bank and Trust Company (FEBTC) was the winning bidder, and a Purchase Agreement and Memorandum of Agreement were executed. Solidbank Corporation filed claims with the PBC Liquidator for: (1) receivables amounting to P8,024,007.27 (totaling P24,158,263.10 by October 1988) assigned to it by a PBC subsidiary, and (2) various deposit liabilities. Solidbank filed a Motion to Implead FEBTC in the liquidation proceedings, which was granted. FEBTC filed an Answer, denying the allegations and asserting that the subject receivables and deposit liabilities were not included among the properties and liabilities it purchased and assumed. Solidbank filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, alleging no genuine issue as to any material fact. The liquidation court granted the motion, ordering FEBTC and the PBC Liquidator to pay Solidbank jointly and severally. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that summary judgment was improper as there were factual issues needing examination, such as the true intent of the agreements and the correct coverage of the Purchase Agreement, and remanded the case for further proceedings.
ISSUE
Whether or not summary judgment is proper in the case at bar.
RULING
No, summary judgment is not proper. The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals. Summary judgment is only permitted when there is no genuine issue as to any material fact. The party moving for summary judgment has the burden to demonstrate clearly the absence of any genuine issue. Here, the pleadings show conflicting allegations regarding whether the specific receivables and deposit liabilities claimed by Solidbank were included in the assets purchased and liabilities assumed by FEBTC under the agreements. These are factual issues that require a trial for resolution. The Court held that when facts are disputed, summary judgment cannot take the place of a trial. Any doubt as to the existence of an issue of fact must be resolved against the movant. Solidbank failed to discharge its burden of proving the absence of a genuine factual issue.