G.R. No. L-10884; March 31, 1959
PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, plaintiff-appellee, vs. PHILIPPINE LEATHER CO. INC., ET AL., defendants-appellants.

FACTS

The Philippine National Bank (PNB) filed a complaint against Philippine Leather Co., Inc. and others for the collection of sums due under two commercial letters of credit. For the first cause of action, PNB alleged that on September 1, 1952, the defendants applied for and were granted a letter of credit for $14,814.80 in favor of Turner Tanning Machinery Co., subject to conditions including a 30% deposit and joint signatures, which were complied with. A draft for $14,549.17 was drawn upon the letter of credit, accepted by the defendants, but remained unpaid upon maturity, leaving an outstanding balance of P22,787.79 as of October 15, 1953, plus interest. For the second cause of action, PNB alleged that on January 30, 1953, the defendants applied for another letter of credit for $2,587.50 in favor of Bay State Chemical Co., under similar conditions. A draft for $2,482.40 was drawn but not paid, leaving an outstanding balance of P4,503.05 as of October 15, 1953, plus interest and storage charges. In their answer, the defendants admitted the material averments of the complaint but denied the specific amounts claimed, stating they were “still checking on the correctness” of the balances. PNB filed a motion for summary judgment, attaching an affidavit from its Manager of the Special Assets Department detailing the payments made and the exact amounts due. The trial court granted the motion and rendered judgment in favor of PNB. The defendants appealed, and the case was certified to the Supreme Court as it raised only questions of law.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court correctly granted the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment.

RULING

Yes, the trial court correctly granted the summary judgment. Under Rule 36 of the Rules of Court, summary judgment is proper when, based on the pleadings, affidavits, and admissions, there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The defendants’ answer, wherein they admitted the material allegations of the complaint but merely stated they were “checking on the correctness” of the claimed balances and denied the amounts for “lack of knowledge or information,” did not tender a genuine issue. Their statements constituted an admission of indebtedness to the plaintiff. The plaintiff supported its motion with a competent affidavit detailing the account. The defendants failed to file any opposing affidavits to contradict the specific amounts due. Therefore, there was no genuine issue of fact, and the plaintiff was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s judgment, with costs against the appellants.