GR 133801; (June, 2000) (Digest)
G.R. No. 133801 ; June 27, 2000
Ley Construction and Development Corporation, Spouses Manuel T. Ley and Janet T. Ley, petitioners, vs. Union Bank of the Philippines, respondent.
FACTS
Respondent Union Bank filed a collection suit against petitioners for defaulting on three promissory notes. Petitioners admitted the obligation but claimed they were granted an extension of time to pay, though they provided no supporting evidence. Respondent moved for partial summary judgment, arguing the defense was a sham. Judge Capulong denied this motion in an order dated August 13, 1992. Subsequently, Judge Arcangel replaced Judge Capulong. In 1996, upon respondent’s ex-parte motion, Judge Arcangel granted the motion for summary judgment, ordering petitioners to pay. When Judge Capulong later returned to the branch, he denied respondent’s motion for execution of Judge Arcangel’s summary judgment, citing his own prior 1992 order of denial.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that Judge Capulong acted without jurisdiction in denying the motion for execution of the summary judgment rendered by Judge Arcangel.
RULING
The Court of Appeals did not err. Judge Capulong’s August 13, 1992 order was an interlocutory order, which does not finally dispose of the case and remains under the court’s control, subject to modification or rescission at any time before final judgment. This inherent power is vested in the court, not in a specific judge. Therefore, Judge Arcangel, as the succeeding presiding judge, had full authority to review and reconsider the prior interlocutory order. By granting the motion for summary judgment, he effectively reconsidered and set aside Judge Capulong’s earlier denial. The summary judgment was proper as petitioners’ defense of an extension, unsupported by any affidavit or documentary evidence, failed to raise a genuine factual issue. Their admission of the debt in their Answer left no triable issue. Consequently, Judge Arcangel’s order became final and executory. Judge Capulong’s subsequent denial of its execution, based on his superseded interlocutory order, was a grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess of jurisdiction. The petition was denied.