Scribd
Upload
56 views

Asia Construct

The petitioner appealed a judgment on the pleadings granted in favor of the respondent. The respondent filed a complaint claiming the petitioner failed to pay a balance pursuant to a Memorandum of Agreement for construction work. In its Answer, the petitioner admitted to executing the Memorandum of Agreement but raised affirmative defenses. The RTC and CA affirmed the judgment, finding the Answer did not specifically deny the material allegations of the complaint. The Supreme Court ruled that judgment on the pleadings was proper because while affirmative defenses were raised, the Answer otherwise admitted the material allegations by failing to make a specific denial.

Uploaded by

Rex Regio
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
56 views

Asia Construct

The petitioner appealed a judgment on the pleadings granted in favor of the respondent. The respondent filed a complaint claiming the petitioner failed to pay a balance pursuant to a Memorandum of Agreement for construction work. In its Answer, the petitioner admitted to executing the Memorandum of Agreement but raised affirmative defenses. The RTC and CA affirmed the judgment, finding the Answer did not specifically deny the material allegations of the complaint. The Supreme Court ruled that judgment on the pleadings was proper because while affirmative defenses were raised, the Answer otherwise admitted the material allegations by failing to make a specific denial.

Uploaded by

Rex Regio
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

G.R. No.

181676, June 11, 2014

ASIAN CONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. SANNAEDLE CO., LTD.,

Facts: Complaint for sum of money was filed by respondent against petitioner, claiming that
despite several written demands, petitioner continuously refused to pay the balance pursuant to

a Memorandum of Agreement where respondent was to supply and erect insulated panel
systems at various pavilions at the Philippine Centennial Exposition Theme Park. Petitioner filed

its Answer with Counterclaim. Respondent moved for judgment on the pleadings because the
Answer admitted all material allegations of the Complaint and, therefore, failed to tender an

issue. RTC rendered judgment in favor of respondent and noted that the Answer with
Counterclaim admitted the execution of the Memorandum of Agreement and did not deny

specifically the claim of respondent. After being denied reconsideration, on appeal, CA affirmed
RTC’s decision. Petitioner now contends that the judgment on the pleadings is not proper,

because it raised special and affirmative defenses in its Answer. With this specific denial, a
genuine issue of fact had been joined so that a judgment on the pleadings could not be made.

Issue: Whether or not judgment on the pleadings is proper.

Ruling: Yes. Judgment on the pleadings is proper when an answer fails to tender an issue, or

otherwise admits the material allegations of the adverse party’s pleading. An answer fails to
tender an issue if it does not comply with the requirements of a specific denial as set out in

Sections 8 and 10, Rule 8, resulting in the admission of the material allegations of the adverse
party’s pleadings. While petitioner raised affirmative defenses such as defect in the certification

of non-forum shopping, no legal capacity to sue and fortuitous event, the same cannot still bar
respondent from seeking the collection of the unpaid balance. Other than these affirmative

defenses, petitioner’s denial neither made a specific denial that a Memorandum of Agreement
was perfected nor did it contest the genuineness and due execution of said agreement.

You might also like