G.R. No. 60783 - Gaw vs. Court of Appeals

The case originated from a complaint filed by Worldwide Philippines Marketing Corporation (WPMC) against Joaquin S. Gaw in the Court of First Instance of Manila, Branch XI, for sums of money and damages.
The complaint, docketed as Civil Case No. 137703, was filed on February 2, 1981, and was amended twice, with the last amendment dated May 22, 1981.
WPMC alleged that Gaw encashed several checks totaling P315,332.00 from August 1980 to February 1981, which were attached as annexes to the complaint.

In his answer, Gaw raised special and affirmative defenses, including a denial of liability for certain checks and an admission of a loan related to one check.
Gaw contended that he had paid the loan but was not liable for other loans obtained by individuals he accompanied.

A pre-trial hearing was scheduled for August 25, 1981, but WPMC filed a motion for partial judgment on the pleadings, claiming Gaw admitted the genuineness of the checks by not specifically denying them under oath.
Gaw opposed this motion, arguing that WPMC's complaint did not allege that the signatures on the checks were his, thus he was not required to deny their genuineness under oath.

The trial court issued a partial judgment on September 16, 1981, ordering Gaw to pay P140,000.00 to WPMC.
This judgment was later modified on October 27, 1981, reducing the amount to P100,000.00.
Following a fire that destroyed court records, WPMC filed for reconstitution of judicial records, while Gaw and an intervenor sought to supply deficiencies in the records.

On February 4, 1982, the trial court declared the partial judgment final and executory, granting WPMC's motion for a writ of execution for P100,000.00.
A writ of execution was subsequently issued on the same date.

Gaw filed a petition for certiorari with a writ of preliminary injunction, which the Court of Appeals dismissed on May 7, 1982, asserting that appeal was the proper remedy.
Gaw's motion for reconsideration was denied on June 10, 1982, leading to the current petition.

The primary issue is whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing Gaw's petition for certiorari, asserting that appeal was the appropriate remedy.

The Supreme Court found merit in Gaw's petition, noting that the trial court's judgment on the pleadings was rendered without a hearing, which constituted an abuse of discretion.
The Court emphasized that the absence of a hearing denied Gaw due process, as factual issues required examination beyond...continue reading