Plaintiff sued defendant for collection of P 1 million based on the latter’s promissory note. The complaint alleges, among others:
1) Defendant borrowed P1 million from plaintiff as evidenced by a duly executed promissory note;
2) The promissory note reads:
“Makati, Philippines
Dec. 30, 2014
For value received from plaintiff, defendant promises to pay plaintiff Pl million, twelve (12) months from the above indicated date without necessity of demand.
Signed
Defendant”
A copy of the promissory note is attached as Annex “A.”
Defendant, in his verified answer, alleged among others:
1) Defendant specifically denies the allegation in paragraphs 1 and 2 of the complaint, the truth being defendant did not execute any promissory note in favor of plaintiff, or
2) Defendant has paid the Ill million claimed in the promissory note (Annex “A” of the Complaint) as evidenced by an “Acknowledgment Receipt” duly executed by plaintiff on January 30, 2015 in Manila with his spouse signing as witness.
A copy of the “Acknowledgment Receipt” is attached as Annex “1” hereof.
Plaintiff filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings on the ground that defendant’s answer failed to tender an issue as the allegations therein on his defenses are sham for being inconsistent; hence, no defense at all. Defendant filed an opposition claiming his answer tendered an issue.
a.) Is judgment on the pleadings proper? (3%)
Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment on the ground that there are no longer any triable genuine issues of facts.
b.) Should the court grant defendant’s motion for summary judgment? (3%)
Suggested answer only. Not an official answer and not legal advice.
[a] No, judgment on the pleadings is improper; and [b] no, the court should not grant defendant's motion for summary judgment. Under Rule 8, Section 2 of the Rules of Court, a party may set forth two or more statements of defense alternatively or hypothetically. Under Rule 34,
Unlock the full Remedial Law answers365 days of full access. GCash, Maya and card accepted.
This is not an official scoring system and carries no weight with the Supreme Court or any bar review provider. It measures how much of the suggested answer's wording your response covers, not whether your reasoning is correct. For practice only.
Quick check
Under Rule 8, Section 2 of the Rules of Court, is a defendant allowed to plead inconsistent or alternative defenses in an answer?
Rule 8, Section 2 explicitly permits a defendant to set forth alternative or hypothetical defenses in an answer.
When is a judgment on the pleadings proper under Rule 34 of the Rules of Court?
Judgment on the pleadings is proper only if the answer fails to tender an issue or admits the material allegations.
What is the defining test for determining whether a summary judgment is appropriate under Rule 35?
Summary judgment requires that there be no genuine issue as to any material fact requiring trial.
Why was the plaintiff's motion for judgment on the pleadings improper in this collection suit?
Choices available with full access.
Why should the trial court deny the defendant's motion for summary judgment in this case?
Choices available with full access.
Learn more about these topics
1. Alternative Defenses Rule
Under Rule 8, Section 2 of the Rules of Court, a party may set forth two or more statements of defense alternatively or hypothetically, either in one defense or in separate defenses. The fact that alternative defenses may be inconsistent with one another does not render the pleading a sham or invalid. A defendant is legally permitted to deny the execution of an actionable document while simultaneously pleading payment in the alternative. Consequently, an answer setting up alternative defenses validly tenders factual issues for trial.
2. Judgment on Pleadings
Under Rule 34 of the Rules of Court, a judgment on the pleadings is proper only when an answer fails to tender an issue, or otherwise admits the material allegations of the adverse party's pleading. Where the defendant's answer specifically denies material allegations of the complaint or raises affirmative defenses, an issue of fact is properly joined. Because pleading alternative defenses is explicitly allowed by procedural rules, an answer containing inconsistent defenses does not constitute an admission of liability or justify a judgment on the pleadings.
3. Summary Judgment Test
Under Rule 35 of the Rules of Court, summary judgment is proper only when the pleadings, supporting affidavits, depositions, and admissions show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact. A genuine issue is an issue of fact which calls for the presentation of evidence, as distinguished from a sham, fictitious, or contrived issue. When the parties dispute both the due execution of a promissory note and the fact of payment, genuine triable issues of material fact exist, precluding summary judgment.