G.R. No. L-17721; October 16, 1961
GREGORIO APELARIO, doing business under the style “GREGORIO TRADING,” plaintiff-appellee, vs. INES CHAVEZ & COMPANY, LTD., doing business under the style “FIDELITY MOTOR SUPPLY COMPANY, LTD., and INES CHAVEZ, defendants-appellants.

FACTS

Plaintiff Gregorio Apelario filed a complaint against the defendant limited partnership and its general partner, Ines Chavez, for the collection of a sum of money. The complaint alleged that the defendants purchased goods on credit for P2,400.00 and subsequently issued two postdated checks in payment. These checks were dishonored for lack of funds. The defendants replaced them with two other postdated checks, which were also dishonored. Despite a formal demand, the defendants refused to pay. The plaintiff also claimed attorney’s fees and sought a writ of attachment, alleging the defendants were about to fraudulently dispose of their properties. The defendants, after securing the lifting of the attachment via a counterbond, filed an answer.
In their answer, the defendants admitted the existence of the debt and its non-payment. They pleaded as an excuse that they had requested the plaintiff to wait because their own accounts receivable had not yet been collected. They denied knowledge of the attorney’s fees allegation and specifically denied the allegations concerning the fraudulent disposal of property. Based on this answer, the plaintiff moved for judgment on the pleadings, which the trial court granted, ordering the defendants to pay the principal debt with interest and reduced attorney’s fees.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court erred in rendering a judgment on the pleadings on the ground that the defendants’ answer raised genuine issues of fact.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s judgment, ruling that a judgment on the pleadings was proper. The legal logic is that a judgment on the pleadings is authorized when the answer fails to tender a genuine issue of fact. Here, the defendants’ answer admitted all material allegations regarding the existence and non-payment of the debt. Their proffered excuse—that they needed to wait for their own receivables to be collected—constitutes neither a valid defense nor a denial of the obligation. The law does not permit a debtor to unilaterally delay payment based on its own business convenience absent a contractual stipulation to that effect.
Furthermore, the denial concerning attorney’s fees did not preclude judgment. Even without a specific stipulation, the court has discretionary power to award reasonable attorney’s fees as damages under Article 2208 of the Civil Code when deemed just and equitable. The defendants’ act of issuing worthless checks twice justified such an award, and the court had already reduced the claimed amount. Finally, the denial of allegations about fraudulent property disposal was immaterial to the main cause of action for sum of money, as the defendants did not seek any damages from the earlier issuance of the writ of attachment. Consequently, no genuine issue was raised, and judgment on the pleadings was correctly rendered.