G.R. No. L-60783. October 31, 1990.
JOAQUIN S. GAW, thru his Attorney-in-Fact EUSEBIO S. MILLAR, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, HON. BENJAMIN RELOVA, in his capacity as Presiding Judge, Branch XI, Court of First Instance of Manila, WORLDWIDE PHILIPPINES MARKETING CORPORATION and the SHERIFF OF MANILA, respondents.

FACTS

This case originated from a complaint for a sum of money filed by Worldwide Philippines Marketing Corporation (WPMC) against Joaquin S. Gaw. WPMC alleged Gaw encashed several checks totaling P315,332.00. In his Answer, Gaw specifically denied liability for a P100,000.00 Equitable Banking Corporation check, asserting it was not his check, he did not draw it, and he owed no debt. He admitted issuing an Allied Banking Corporation check for P40,000.00 but claimed it had been paid. WPMC moved for partial judgment on the pleadings, arguing Gaw’s failure to deny the checks under oath constituted an admission.
The trial court granted partial judgment on the pleadings for P140,000.00, covering the P100,000.00 and P40,000.00 checks. Gaw’s motion for reconsideration succeeded only for the P40,000.00 check, leaving the P100,000.00 award intact. The Court of Appeals dismissed Gaw’s petition for certiorari, prompting this appeal to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court correctly rendered a partial judgment on the pleadings against petitioner Gaw for the P100,000.00 check.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and nullified the partial judgment. The legal logic centers on the improper application of the rules on judgment on the pleadings and implied admission. A judgment on the pleadings is proper only when the answer fails to tender any genuine issue of fact. Here, Gaw’s Answer explicitly and categorically denied being the drawer of the P100,000.00 check and any indebtedness, thereby tendering a factual issue requiring a full trial.
Furthermore, the trial court erroneously invoked the rule on implied admission under Section 8, Rule 8 of the Rules of Court, which deems the genuineness and due execution of a document admitted if not specifically denied under oath. This rule applies only when the adverse party appears to be a party to the instrument. The complaint contained no allegation that the signature on the P100,000.00 check was Gaw’s or that he was a party to it. Consequently, he had no obligation to deny it under oath. As held in Lim Chingco v. Terariray, the rule does not apply where the defendant is not shown to be a party to the document. Rendering judgment without a trial, where Gaw’s denial raised factual issues, constituted a denial of due process. The partial judgment was void and the case was remanded for further proceedings.