Case Digest (G.R. No. 229881) Core Legal Reasoning Model
Core Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
In Fernando Medical Enterprises, Inc. (“Petitioner”), a domestic corporation dealing in medical equipment and supplies, entered into four separate contracts with Wesleyan University–Philippines, Inc. (“Respondent”) from January 9, 2006 to February 2, 2007 for the supply and installation of hospital equipment totaling ₱123,901,650.00. Under a Memorandum of Agreement dated January 9, 2006, the Petitioner agreed to supply medical units for ₱18,625,000.00; by a Deed of Undertaking dated July 5, 2006, to install a gas pipeline system for ₱8,500,000.00; by another Deed of Undertaking dated July 27, 2006, to furnish two Diamond Select machines for ₱65,000,000.00; and by a Deed of Undertaking dated February 2, 2007, to provide hospital furnishings for ₱32,926,650.00. The Respondent paid only ₱67,357,683.23, leaving an unpaid balance of ₱54,654,195.54. On February 11, 2009, the parties executed an Agreement reducing the claim to ₱50,400,000.00 payable in 36 monthly postdated checks of Case Digest (G.R. No. 229881) Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
- Contracts and Deliveries
- From January 9, 2006 to February 2, 2007, petitioner Fernando Medical Enterprises, Inc. (FMEI) entered into four agreements with respondent Wesleyan University–Philippines, Inc. (WUP) for the supply and installation of hospital equipment and furnishings:
- Memorandum of Agreement (Jan. 9, 2006) – P18,625,000.00
- Deed of Undertaking (July 5, 2006) – P8,500,000.00
- Deed of Undertaking (July 27, 2006) – P65,000,000.00
- Deed of Undertaking (Feb. 2, 2007) – P32,926,650.00
- WUP paid only P67,357,683.23 of the total P123,901,650.00, leaving an alleged unpaid balance of P54,654,195.54.
- Agreement to Adjust Claim
- On February 11, 2009, FMEI and WUP agreed to reduce the claim to P50,400,000.00, payable in 36 equal postdated checks of P1,400,000.00 each.
- Four checks totaling P5,600,000.00 were honored; the rest were dishonored, making the entire balance due.
- Pre-Suit Correspondence and Suit
- On May 27, 2009, WUP’s new administration disputed the contracts as rescissible for lesion, refused to honor the Feb. 11, 2009 agreement, and cited lack of board approval.
- FMEI served a demand letter (June 24, 2009) and, upon non-payment, filed a complaint for sum of money in the RTC, Manila (Civil Case No. 09-122116).
- WUP moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, improper venue, litis pendentia, and forum shopping; the RTC denied the motion (July 19, 2009).
- WUP filed its answer ad cautelam:
- Admitted complaint paras 2–5, 9–10 subject to special defenses.
- Denied paras 6–8 “for lack of knowledge or information” and paras 11–12 as conclusions of law.
- FMEI filed a Motion for Judgment Based on the Pleadings (Sept. 28, 2011); the RTC denied it (Oct. 27, 2011) and denied reconsideration (Dec. 29, 2011).
- On certiorari, the CA affirmed the denial (July 2, 2013), relying partly on WUP’s allegations in a separate rescission suit regarding the total payments made.
Issues:
- Main Issue
- Whether the Court of Appeals committed reversible error by affirming the denial of FMEI’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, when the only relevant adjudicative documents were the pleadings in Civil Case No. 09-122116.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)