Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Vs
In this petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of National Power Corporation (NPC) in the amount of
Court, petitioner Asian Construction and Development .P54,500,000;
Corporation or ASIAKONSTRUKT, seeks the reversal and
setting aside of the decision[1]dated March 15, 2002
and the Resolution[2] dated June 3, 2002 of the Court (b) Deed of Assignment of Receivables dated 28 June
of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 68189. The assailed 1995 where ASIAKONSTRUKT assigned its receivables
decision affirm with modification the Summary from its Contract with the NPC in the amount of
Judgment rendered by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of P26,281,000.00;
Makati City in an action for a sum of money thereat
commenced by the herein respondent, Philippine
Commercial International Bank (PCIBANK) against the (c) Deed of Assignment of Receivables dated 28
petitioner, while the challenged resolution denied August 1995 where ASIAKONSTRUKT assigned its
petitioners motion for reconsideration. receivables from its Sub-Contract with ABB Power, Inc.,
in the amount of P43,000,000.00;
The facts:
(d) Deed of Assignment of Contract Proceeds dated 27
March 1996 where ASIAKONSTRUKT assigned its
On February 24, 1999, in the RTC of Makati City, receivables from its contracts with PNOC in the
respondent PCIBANK filed a complaint[3] for a sum of aggregate amount of P46,000,000.00; and
money with prayer for a writ of preliminary attachment
against petitioner ASIAKONSTRUKT. Docketed as Civil
Case No. 99-432, the complaint alleged, inter alia, as (e) Deed of Assignment of Contract Proceeds dated 20
follows: February 1997 where ASIAKONSTRUKT assigned its
receivables from the Ormat Philippines, Inc., in the
aggregate amount of US$3,350,000.00;
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
WHEREFORE, let a writ of preliminary attachment issue On January 24, 2000, plaintiff PCIBANK filed a verified
against all the property of defendant not exempt from Motion for Summary Judgment,[6] therein contending
execution or so much thereof as may be sufficient to that the defenses interposed by the defendant are
satisfy plaintiffs principal claim of US$4,553,446.06, sham and contrived, that the alleged financial crisis
representing the alleged unpaid obligation of pleaded in the Answer is not a fortuitous event that
defendant, inclusive of interest and penalty charges, as would excuse debtors from their loan obligations, nor
of December 31, 1998, which is equivalent to is it an exempting circumstance under Article 1262 of
P174,260,380.72, upon plaintiffs filing of a bond in an the New Civil Code where, as here, the same is
equal amount to answer for all it may sustain by reason attended by bad faith. In the same motion, PCIBANK
of the attachment if the Court shall finally adjudge that also asserts that the deeds of assignments executed in
plaintiff was not entitled thereto. its favor are not contracts of adhesion, and even if they
were, the same are valid.
SO ORDERED.
To the Motion for Summary Judgment, defendant
interposed an Opposition[7] insisting that its Answer
With plaintiff PCIBANK having posted the requisite tendered or raised genuine and substantial issues of
bond, a writ of preliminary attachment was thereafter material facts which require full-blown trial, namely:
issued by the trial court. Per records, defendant
ASIAKONSTRUKT did not file any motion for the quashal
or dissolution of the writ. 1. Whether or not defendant received all or part of the
proceeds/receivables due from the contracts
mentioned in the deeds of assignment at the time the
Meanwhile, on August 27, 1999, defendant complaint was filed;
ASIAKONSTRUKT filed its Answer,[5] thereunder
making admissions and denials. Defendant admits,
subject to its defenses, the material allegations of the 2. Granting that defendant received those
Complaint as regards its indebtedness to plaintiff proceeds/receivables, whether or not defendant
PCIBANK and its execution of the various deeds of fraudulently misappropriated the same;
assignment enumerated therein. It, however, denies,
for lack of knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to
the truth thereof, the averments in the Complaint that 3. Whether or not defendant is virtually insolvent as a
it has not paid, despite demands, its due and result of the regionwide economic crisis that hit Asia,
demandable obligations, as well as the amounts due causing the Philippine peso to depreciate drastically;
the plaintiff as itemized in paragraph 2.06, supra, of the and
Complaint. It likewise denies PCIBANKs allegations in
the same Complaint in support of its prayer for a writ of
preliminary attachment, particularly its having 4. Whether the parties dealt with each other on equal
fraudulently misappropriated for its own use the footing with respect to the execution of the deeds of
contract proceeds/receivables under the contracts assignment as to give the defendant an honest
mentioned in the several deeds of assignments, opportunity to reject the onerous terms imposed
claiming in this respect that it has still remaining therein.
receivables from those contracts.
Considering that there is no more issue to be resolved, Under Rule 35 of the 1997 Rules of Procedure, as
the court hereby grants plaintiffs Motion and renders amended, except as to the amount of damages, when
Judgment in favor of the plaintiff against the defendant there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the
based on their respective pleadings in accordance with moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of
Section 4, Rule 35 of the Rules of Court. law, summary judgment may be allowed.[11] Summary
or accelerated judgment is a procedural technique
aimed at weeding out sham claims or defenses at an
In time, petitioner went to the CA whereat its appellate early stage of litigation thereby avoiding the expense
recourse was docketed as CA-G.R. CV No. 68189. As and loss of time involved in a trial.[12]
stated at the threshold hereof, the CA, in its decision[9]
of May 15, 2002, affirmed with modification the
Summary Judgment rendered by the trial court, the Under the Rules, summary judgment is appropriate
modification being as regards the award for attorneys when there are no genuine issues of fact which call for
fees which the CA reduced to P1,000,000.00, to wit: the presentation of evidence in a full-blown trial. Even
if on their face the pleadings appear to raise issues,
when the affidavits, depositions and admissions show
IN THE LIGHT OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the appeal is that such issues are not genuine, then summary
PARTIALLY GRANTED. The Decision appealed from is judgment as prescribed by the Rules must ensue as a
AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION THAT THE AWARD matter of law. The determinative factor, therefore, in a
FOR ATTORNEYS FEES is reduced to P1,000,000.00. motion for summary judgment, is the presence or
absence of a genuine issue as to any material fact.
SO ORDERED.
(i) Whether or not [petitioner] received all or part of the
proceeds/receivables due from the construction
A genuine issue is an issue of fact which requires the
contracts at the time the civil action was filed;
presentation of evidence as distinguished from a sham,
fictitious, contrived or false claim. When the facts as
pleaded appear uncontested or undisputed, then there
(ii) Granting that [petitioner] received the
is no real or genuine issue or question as to the facts,
proceeds/receivables from the construction contracts,
and summary judgment is called for. The party who
whether or not [petitioner] fraudulently
moves for summary judgment has the burden of
misappropriated the same;
demonstrating clearly the absence of any genuine issue
of fact, or that the issue posed in the complaint is
patently unsubstantial so as not to constitute a genuine
issue for trial. Trial courts have limited authority to (iii) Whether or not [petitioner] had become
render summary judgments and may do so only when virtually insolvent as a result of the region-wide
there is clearly no genuine issue as to any material fact. economic crisis that hit Asia, causing the Philippine
When the facts as pleaded by the parties are disputed peso to depreciate dramatically; and
or contested, proceedings for summary judgment
cannot take the place of trial.[13]
(iv) Whether or not [respondent] and [petitioner]
dealt with each other on equal footing with respect to
the execution of the deeds of assignment of receivables
as to give [petitioner] an honest opportunity to reject
The CA, in its challenged decision, stated and we are in the onerous terms imposed on it.
full accord with it: