Facts:

The case involves the Province of Pangasinan and its Provincial Governor Rafael M. Colet as petitioners against private respondent Rogelio R. Coquial. The events leading to the case began on April 27, 1990, when Coquial filed a complaint against the petitioners before the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, which was docketed as Civil Case No. Q-90-5337. Coquial alleged that he had entered into a contract with the petitioners for the improvement of 6.492 kilometers of the Urdaneta-Mapandan Road, with a total contract price of P5,169,932.10. He claimed that after the completion of Phase I, which was accepted by the petitioners, he was entitled to receive P3,174,083.20, but the petitioners had only paid P1,320,000.00, leaving an outstanding balance of P1,854,083.20. Furthermore, Coquial asserted that he had completed 60% of Phase II, which amounted to P1,000,000.00, but the petitioners decided not to continue with the project and refused to pay him. Consequently, Coquial sough...

Facts:

Contractual Agreement

• On April 27, 1990, private respondent Rogelio R. Coquial filed a complaint against the Province of Pangasinan and Provincial Governor Rafael M. Colet before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City. The complaint involved a contract for the improvement of the Urdaneta-Mapandan Road, divided into Phase I and Phase II, with a total consideration of P5,169,932.10.

Completion and Payment Issues

• Coquial alleged that Phase I was 100% completed and accepted by the petitioners, with an audit report indicating that he should be paid P3,174,083.20. However, petitioners had only paid P1,320,000.00, leaving a balance of P1,854,083.20, which they refused to pay.
• Phase II was 60% completed, costing P1,000,000.00, but petitioners decided not to pursue the project and refused payment.

Partial Summary Judgment

• On December 19, 1990, Coquial filed a motion for partial summary judgment for the unpaid balance of Phase I. On April 24, 1991, the RTC granted the motion, ordering petitioners to pay P1,854,083.20.

Procedural Delays and Motions

• Petitioners' counsel requested extensions to file a motion for reconsideration, but the motion was ultimately filed on May 27, 1991, one day late, as May 26, 1991, was a Sunday.
• The RTC denied the motion for reconsideration on July 15, 1991, and Coquial filed a motion for execution of the partial summary judgment on July 26, 1991.

Appeal and Execution

• Petitioners filed a notice of appeal on August 28, 1991, but the RTC denied it on September 3, 1991, stating that the resolution of April 24, 1991, had become final and executory. The RTC also granted the motion for execution and issued a writ of execution on September 10, 1991, followed by a garnishment order on September 30, 1991.

Court of Appeals Decision

• Petitioners filed a petition for certiorari and mandamus before the Court of Appeals (CA), which denied the petition on December 6, 1991, ruling that the partial summary judgment had become final and executory due to procedural lapses.

Issue:

• (Unlock)

Ruling:

• (Unlock)

Ratio:

1. Nature of Partial Summary Judgment: A partial summary judgment is interlocutory and does not finally dispose of the case. It is governed by Section 4 of Rule 34 of the Rules of Court, which allows for further proceedings on contested material facts.
2. Finality of Judgment: The RTC and CA erred in applying Section 5 of Rule 36, which pertains to final judgments. A partial summary judgment does not terminate the action and is not immediately executory.
3. Procedural Lapses: The filing of a motion for extension of time to file a motion for reconsideration does not interrupt the period of appeal, as such motions are prohibited under the rules. However, the partial summary judgment's interlocutory nature means it is not subject to immediate execution.