Facts:

The case involves Joaquin S. Gaw, represented by his attorney-in-fact Eusebio S. Millar, as the petitioner against the Court of Appeals, Hon. Benjamin Relova (in his capacity as Presiding Judge of Branch XI, Court of First Instance of Manila), Worldwide Philippines Marketing Corporation (WPMC), and the Sheriff of Manila as respondents. The events leading to this case began on February 2, 1981, when WPMC filed a complaint for sums of money with damages and preliminary attachment against Gaw, which was docketed as Civil Case No. 137703. WPMC alleged that Gaw had encashed several personal and postdated checks totaling P315,332.00 from August 1980 to January 1981. Gaw responded to the amended complaint, admitting to one check of P40,000.00 but denying the authenticity of others, claiming he was not indebted to WPMC.

The trial court set a pre-trial hearing for August 25, 1981, but WPMC filed a motion for partial judgment on the pleadings, arguing that Gaw had admitted the genui...

Facts:

Background of the Case

• The case originated from the Court of First Instance of Manila, Branch XI, where private respondent Worldwide Philippines Marketing Corporation (WPMC) filed a complaint for sums of money with damages and preliminary attachment against petitioner Joaquin S. Gaw on February 2, 1981. The case was docketed as Civil Case No. 137703.
• WPMC amended its complaint twice, with the last amendment dated May 22, 1981. Joaquin S. Gaw filed an answer with counterclaim on July 29, 1981.

Allegations in the Amended Complaint

• WPMC alleged that Joaquin S. Gaw, taking advantage of his personal and business relationship with WPMC’s General Manager, encashed several personal and postdated checks totaling P315,332.00 from August 1980 to January 1981. The checks were listed as follows:
  • EBC Check 11289889: P100,000.00 (September 18, 1980)
  • ABC Check 30064865: P40,000.00 (October 1, 1980)
  • TMBC Check 16344241: P34,750.00 (December 27, 1980)
  • TMBC Check 16376681: P67,705.00 (January 17, 1981)
  • TMBC Check 16376603: P72,877.00 (February 2, 1981)

Defenses Raised by Joaquin S. Gaw

• Joaquin S. Gaw denied liability for the P100,000.00 check (EBC Check 11289889), claiming it was not his check and that he had not withdrawn it.
• He admitted to drawing the P40,000.00 check (ABC Check 30064865) but claimed he had already paid the loan it represented. He also stated that he was not liable for loans obtained by others whom he merely accompanied.

Procedural Developments

• On August 3, 1981, the case was set for pre-trial on August 25, 1981.
• On August 4, 1981, WPMC filed a motion for partial judgment on the pleadings, arguing that Joaquin S. Gaw failed to specifically deny the genuineness and due execution of the checks under oath.
• Joaquin S. Gaw opposed the motion, arguing that there was no allegation in the complaint that the signatures on the checks were his, and thus, he was not required to deny them under oath.
• On August 18, 1981, Joaquin S. Gaw moved to cancel the pre-trial, but the motion was denied by the trial court on August 21, 1981.
• On September 16, 1981, the trial court issued a partial judgment ordering Joaquin S. Gaw to pay WPMC P140,000.00. This was later modified to P100,000.00 on October 27, 1981.
• On February 4, 1982, the trial court issued a writ of execution for the P100,000.00 judgment.

Appeal to the Court of Appeals

• Joaquin S. Gaw filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, which dismissed the petition on May 7, 1982, holding that appeal was the proper remedy.
• A motion for reconsideration was denied on June 10, 1982.

Issue:

• (Unlock)

Ruling:

• (Unlock)

Ratio:

1. Certiorari as the Proper Remedy: The Supreme Court held that certiorari was the proper remedy, not appeal, because the trial court’s partial judgment on the pleadings was rendered without a hearing and without joining the issues. This amounted to a denial of due process and was a grave abuse of discretion.
2. Judgment on the Pleadings Improper: The trial court erred in rendering a partial judgment on the pleadings. Joaquin S. Gaw’s answer clearly contested the allegations in the complaint, particularly regarding the P100,000.00 check, which he denied drawing. The absence of an allegation in the complaint that the check bore his signature meant he was not required to specifically deny its genuineness under oath.
3. Exceptions to Implied Admission: The Court cited the exception to the rule on implied admission (failure to make a sworn specific denial) when the adverse party does not appear to be a party to the instrument. Since there was no allegation that Joaquin S. Gaw drew the check, he was under no obligation to deny its genuineness under oath.
4. Due Process Violation: The partial judgment was rendered without a hearing, depriving Joaquin S. Gaw of the opportunity to present evidence. This was a clear denial of due process, rendering the judgment null and void.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals’ decision and remanded the case to the lower court for further proceedings, emphasizing that the trial court’s partial judgment on the pleadings was improper and violated due process.