Judgment on the
pleadings
Summary judgments Movant Plaintiff only Either plaintiff or defendant Answer Answer does not tender
an issue
There is an issue tendered in the answer, but it is not genuine or real issue as may be shown by affidavits and depositions that there is no real issue and that the party is entitled to judgment as a matter of right Notice Movants must give a 3-
day notice of hearing
Opposing party is given 10 days’ notice
Terminatio n
Entire case may be terminated
May only be partial Who can
file
Only the plaintiff or the defendants as far as the counterclaim, cross- claim or third-party complaint is concerned can file the same
Either the plaintiff or the defendant may file it
Basis of the
judgment
Based only on the
pleadings alone, hence, only on the complaint and the answer
Based on the pleadings, supporting affidavits,
depositions or admissions ( see Sec. 1, Rule 35).
If you compare the provisions of a judgment on the pleadings to that of a summary judgment, as contained in Rule 34, we will immediately notice
that there is a section which talks about a Summary judgment by plaintiff and a Summary judgment by defendant. Unlike in judgment on the
pleadings, where we expect the movant to be a plaintiff, in a summary judgment, the law gives either parties the option to file a motion for summary judgment. This motions are expressly recognized in the rules. Q: When is a claimant allowed to file for summary judgment?
A: A party seeking to recover upon a claim, counterclaim, or cross-claim or to obtain a declaratory relief may, at any time after the pleading in answer thereto has been served, move with supporting affidavits, depositions or admissions for a summary judgment in his favor upon all or any part thereof (Sec. 1, Rule 35).
Q: When is a defendant allowed to file for summary judgment?
A: A party against whom a claim, counterclaim, or cross-claim is asserted or a declaratory relief is sought may, at any time, move with supporting affidavits, depositions or admissions for a summary judgment in his favor as to all or any part thereof (Sec. 2, Rule 35).
Another term for summary judgment under American Rules is an
accelerated judgment. It seems to be similar to that in acceleration clause. Why will the court render a summary judgment?
The court will not conduct a full blown trial envisioned in Rule 30. In a summary judgment designed not to conduct full-blown trial, according to jurisprudence, there is an issue in the answer submitted by the defendant, but it turns out to be a sham issue. Therefore, there is no need for the court to conduct a full-blown trial on a sham issue. Whether or not the issue is genuine will depend upon the circumstances of the case.
An instant example of a summary judgment rendered by a court is that where the court found that the issue is not really genuine although there is really an issue raised in the answer. A complaint was filed by the plaintiff for an unpaid loan. The complaint carried with it an actionable document
attached to the complaint, a printed promissory note. The promissory note contained a blank as to the date of the maturity of the loan, which was unfortunately not accomplished. So, the promissory note is indeterminate as to the date of maturity. The defendant filed an answer and set up the
defense that the filing of the complaint was premature because the debt has not matured, and the defendant pointed out that the blank wherein the date of maturity was supposed to be indicated has no entry. The defendant interposed that the court should first fix the maturity date of the complaint before the plaintiff can file a complaint for recovery of the loan. The plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment. And the court agreed with the plaintiff that the defense set up by the defendant, that the maturity of the loan has not yet happened, is really a sham issue, as the issue is in conflict with the provisions of substantive law. The SC said that if that is a promissory note without a date fixed as to maturity, that is a note payable on demand, as provided in the NCC. If there is already a demand made by the creditor, and the debtor failed to comply with that demand, it means there is already a breach of the obligation by the debtor.
In as similar case where the plaintiff moved for summary judgment because the answer of the defendant does not raise any issue, the court found merit in the motion. But when the court prepared the order granting the motion for summary judgment, the court mentioned that the motion is one that is asking for a judgment on the pleadings. The dispositive portion of the order called the judgment as on for judgment on the pleadings in favor of the plaintiff, directing the defendant to pay.
The defendant challenged the validity of the judgment, saying that what the court should have rendered should be a summary judgment, because the court made a finding that the issue is not genuine, and yet the court issued a judgment on the pleadings, and therefore the judgment is void. SC held that whether it is called a summary judgment or judgment on the pleadings, it does not really matter at all, as there is an adjudication on the merits. The error was purely formal. SC said that the error in the determination whether the judgment was a summary judgment or a judgment on the pleadings will not prejudice the defendant, and therefore cannot be declared as void. After all, it is a judgment that complies with the requirements of Rule 36. There is a determination of the rights and obligations of the parties involved in the cause of action.
There is a summary judgment that is similar to separate judgment and several judgment as it is interlocutory. If you read the Rule on summary judgment, there is such a thing as partial summary judgment. If the
order, as it does not dispose of the case completely. It disposes only of the issue that was raised before the court. It cannot be appealed.
In a summary judgment, unlike in a judgment on the pleadings, the court will conduct a summary hearing. In judgment on the pleadings, the court will not conduct a hearing at all, as the court will simply rely on the contents of the complaint and the answer. Since there is an issue raised by the defendant in summary judgment, the court will need to conduct a summary hearing in order to determine whether that is a sham issue or a genuine issue. There is need by the parties to present evidence in order to support their respective issues. The parties could present affidavits, depositions, or any other document that the parties may present. What the court will not allow is a full-blown hearing on the matter as to whether the issue is genuine or not. This issue will have to be proven only by documentary evidence, affidavits or evidence taken under modes of discovery.
The SC has abandoned the old doctrine that summary judgments cannot be available in actions for recovery of property. SC has decided several cases which affirmed the availability of summary judgments involving recovery of title to or possession of real property. It is available in real or personal civil actions as long as the requisite that the issue is not a genuine issue is present.