Case Summary (G.R. No. L-33695)
Nature of the Case and Facts
Manufacturers Bank filed a complaint against Diversified Industries and Alfonso Tan for the recovery of a monetary obligation. The complaint, lodged with the Court of First Instance of Manila, alleged that the defendants obtained a loan of P125,000.00, which became due on February 26, 1965, but remained unpaid, resulting in an outstanding balance of P100,119.21 as of June 25, 1965. The complaint also sought attorney’s fees equivalent to 10% of the total amount due.
Defendants' Response
In their answer, the defendants admitted certain allegations regarding their identities and the existence of the loan agreement but denied the claims concerning the loan's due date and outstanding balance due to lack of sufficient knowledge. The defendants contended that they could not be held liable as the amounts drawn against the overdraft account were unknown to them.
Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings
Manufacturers Bank subsequently moved for a judgment on the pleadings, emphasizing the uncontroverted facts established in the defendants’ admissions and the loan agreement's clear provisions obligating them to pay the amounts due. The defendants opposed this motion while asserting they were unaware of the amounts claimed and requested to amend their answer to include additional defenses.
Court's Denial of Amendments
The trial court denied the defendants' motion to amend their answer and ruled in favor of Manufacturers Bank, asserting that the original answer did not raise any issues of fact. The court held that the defendants’ denials were insufficient and did not negate their admissions regarding the obligations under the agreement.
Appeal and Grounds for Reconsideration
In the appeal, Manufacturers Bank argued that the trial court erred in not specifying the joint and several liabilities of Diversified Industries and Tan, and in limiting the interest owed to the legal rate rather than the agreed 10%. Meanwhile, the defendants claimed malpractice regarding the amendment of their answer, failure to state a cause of action, and the granting of judgment based on the pleadings.
Court's Rationale in Affirming Judgment
The court upheld the trial court's decision, indicating that the amendment of the defendants’ answer was not a matter of right but rather subject to the court's discretion. It found that the defendants had not provided sufficient justification for their two-year delay in seeking to amend their pleading, and they failed to demon
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. L-33695)
Case Overview
- The case revolves around a complaint filed by Manufacturers Bank & Trust Co. seeking to recover a sum of money from Diversified Industries, Inc. and Alfonso Tan.
- The principal issue is the propriety of judgment on the pleadings as stipulated in Rule 19 of the Rules of Court.
Facts of the Case
- The bank granted a loan of P125,000 on December 17, 1963, to the defendants, which was due on February 26, 1965.
- The defendants failed to liquidate their obligation, leaving an outstanding balance of P100,119.21 as of June 25, 1965.
- The bank incurred attorney's fees of 10% of the amount due, as stipulated in the loan agreement.
Defendants’ Answer
- The defendants admitted certain averments about their personal circumstances and the loan but denied knowledge of the loan's due date and the outstanding balance.
- They claimed the complaint failed to state a cause of action, asserting they had not drawn against the overdraft account.
Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings
- Manufacturers Bank moved for judgment on the pleadings, citing that the defendants’ admissions and the loan agreement contradicted their claims of lack of knowledge regarding the loan's status.
- The bank noted prior correspondence from Alfonso Tan requesting to pay the obligation in installments, indicating