Title: Asian Construction and Development Corporation, vs. Sannaedle Co., Ltd. Source: G.R. No. 181676, June 11, 2014 Ponente: Peralta, J

Case 4
TITLE: ASIAN CONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT

CORPORATION, vs. SANNAEDLE CO., LTD.
SOURCE: G.R. No. 181676, June 11, 2014
PONENTE: PERALTA, J.
FACTS:
This case for Sum of Money filed by respondent against

petitioner. The complaint alleged that petitioner and respondent
executed a Memorandum of Agreement wherein respondent was
engaged to supply and erect insulated panel systems at various
pavilions at the Philippine Centennial Exposition Theme Park,
specifically for the Phase I Project, for an agreed amount of
US$3,745,287.94. Pursuant to the Memorandum of Agreement,
petitioner made various payments amounting to US$3,129,667.32
leaving a balance of US$615,620.33. Respondent claims that it made
several written demands for petitioner to pay the said balance, but the
latter continuously refused to heed its plea. Petitioner filed its Answer
with Counterclaim. Respondent then moved for judgment on the
pleadings on the ground that the Answer admitted all material
allegations of the Complaint and, therefore, failed to tender an issue.
Thus, respondent deems that petitioner’s Answer, in effect, admitted
the existence of the Memorandum of Agreement and its failure to pay
the balance despite repeated demands. The Regional Trial Court
(RTC) rendered judgment in favor of respondent.
Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration against said decision and

the same was denied. Thus, petitioner filed an appeal before the CA. The
CA rendered its Decision by dismissing the appeal and affirming the
judgment of the Regional Trial Court. Petitioner filed a motion for
reconsideration, but the CA denied it.
ISSUES:
Whether or not judgment on the pleadings is proper?

HELD:
Petitioner contends that the judgment on the pleadings is not proper,

because it raised special and affirmative defenses in its Answer. It asserts
that with this specific denial, a genuine issue of fact had been joined to the
extent that a judgment on the pleadings could not be made. Respondent
counters that petitioner’s Answer admitted the material allegations of its
complaint regarding the cause of action, which is collection of sum of
money. Respondent emphasizes that assuming petitioner’s defense of
respondent’s lack of capacity to sue has a leg to stand on, still, the same
cannot prevent respondent from seeking the collection of petitioner’s
unpaid balance.
The Courts Judgment on the pleadings is governed by Section 1,

Rule 34 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure which reads:
Sec. 1. Judgment on the pleadings. – Where an answer fails to

tender an issue, or otherwise admits the material allegations of
the adverse party’s pleading, the court may, on motion of that
party, direct judgment on such pleading. However, in actions for
declaration of nullity or annulment of marriage or for legal
separation, the material facts alleged in the complaint shall
always be proved.
Judgment on the pleadings is proper when an answer fails to tender

an issue, or otherwise admits the material allegations of the adverse party’s
pleading. An answer fails to tender an issue if it does not comply with the
requirements of a specific denial as set out in Sections 8 and 10, Rule 8 of
the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, resulting in the admission of the material
allegations of the adverse party’s pleadings.
In this case petitioner acknowledged having entered into a

Memorandum of Agreement with respondent and that it still has an unpaid
balance of US$615,620.33.
It is noted that respondent’s complaint for a sum of money is based
mainly on the alleged failure of petitioner to pay the balance of
US$615,620.33 under the Memorandum of Agreement. In the petitioner’s
Answer, it is obvious that it admitted the foregoing material allegations in
paragraphs 3, 4 and 5 of the complaint, which states as follows:
The [Petitioner] ASIAN CONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT

CORPORATION ("ASIAKONSTRUKT" for brevity), is a corporation duly
incorporated under the laws of the Philippines, with capacity to sue and be
sued, and with business address at the Second Floor, Union Ajinomoto
Building, Sen. Gil Puyat Avenue, Makati City, and within the jurisdiction of
this Honorable Court; and where it may be served with summons and other
court processes of this Honorable Court,
That the respondent and the petitioner entered into a Memorandum

of Agreement in Makati City, within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court,
dated February 17, 1998, wherein the Petitioner corporation agreed with
and ordered the herein Respondent, as Contractor, to design and install
INSUPANEL SYSTEMS at various pavilions, etc. at expo projects site; and
specifically for the Phase I project at an agreed amount of
US$3,745,287.94(Par. 2.1). A xerox copy of this Memorandum of
Agreement dated February 17, 1998 between [Respondent] and [Petitioner]
consisting of six (6) pages, is attached hereto as Annex B and made an
integral part hereof.
That pursuant to this Memorandum of Agreement (Exhibit B) and

contract price of US$3,745,287.94, various payments have been made by
[Petitioner] Corporation on this Phase I project totaling US$3,129,667.32,
thus leaving a balance of US$615,620.33.
While petitioner allegedly raised affirmative defenses, i.e., defect in

the certification of non-forum shopping, no legal capacity to sue and
fortuitous event, the same cannot still bar respondent from seeking the
collection of the unpaid balance. Other than these affirmative defenses,
petitioner’s denial neither made a specific denial that a Memorandum of
Agreement was perfected nor did it contest the genuineness and due
execution of said agreement.
In essence, the petitioner justifies its refusal to tender payment of the
balance of US$615,620.33 to the respondent, to the failure of the First
Centennial Clark Corporation (FCCC) to comply with its obligations to
ASIAKONSTRUKT which it characterizes as a fortuitous event.
The defenses raised by petitioner cannot prevent the respondent

from seeking the collection of the amount of US$615,620.33. The express
terms of the Memorandum of Agreement, the genuineness and due
execution of which are not denied by the petitioner. It cannot assert the
said defenses in order to resist the respondent's claim for the aforesaid
sum of money, especially where it has been sufficiently shown by the
allegations of the Complaint and the Answer that the petitioner is clearly
liable for the payment thereof.
The petition was DENIED. The Decision and Resolution of the

Court of Appeals were AFFIRMED.

Title: Asian Construction and Development Corporation, vs. Sannaedle Co., Ltd. Source: G.R. No. 181676, June 11, 2014 Ponente: Peralta, J

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Title: Asian Construction and Development Corporation, vs. Sannaedle Co., Ltd. Source: G.R. No. 181676, June 11, 2014 Ponente: Peralta, J

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Title: Asian Construction and Development Corporation, vs. Sannaedle Co., Ltd. Source: G.R. No. 181676, June 11, 2014 Ponente: Peralta, J

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 4

TITLE: ASIAN CONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT

This case for Sum of Money filed by respondent against

Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration against said decision and

Whether or not judgment on the pleadings is proper?

Petitioner contends that the judgment on the pleadings is not proper,

The Courts Judgment on the pleadings is governed by Section 1,

Sec. 1. Judgment on the pleadings. – Where an answer fails to

Judgment on the pleadings is proper when an answer fails to tender

In this case petitioner acknowledged having entered into a

The [Petitioner] ASIAN CONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT

That the respondent and the petitioner entered into a Memorandum

That pursuant to this Memorandum of Agreement (Exhibit B) and

While petitioner allegedly raised affirmative defenses, i.e., defect in

The defenses raised by petitioner cannot prevent the respondent

The petition was DENIED. The Decision and Resolution of the

You might also like