JUSTICE ROBERTO ABAD: A SUMMARY JUDGMENT IS APT WHEN THE ESSENTIAL FACTS OF THE CASE ARE UNCONTESTED OR THE PARTIES DO NOT RAISE ANY GENUINE ISSUE OF FACT.

A summary judgment is apt when the essential facts of the case are uncontested or the parties do not raise any genuine issue of fact. (Rivera v. Solidbank Corporation, G.R. No. 163269, April 19, 2006, 487 SCRA 512, 535, cited in Bitanga v. Pyramid Construction Engineering Corporation, G.R. No. 173526, August 28, 2008, 563 SCRA 544, 560).

In Bank of Philippine Islands vs. Spouses Norman and Angelina Yu, the Supreme Court explained that to resolve the issue of the excessive charges allegedly incorporated into the auction bid price, the RTC simply had to look at a) the pleadings of the parties; b) the loan agreements, the promissory note, and the real estate mortgages between them; c) the foreclosure and bidding documents; and d) the admissions and other disclosures between the parties during pre-trial. Since the parties admitted not only the existence, authenticity, and genuine execution of these documents but also what they stated, the trial court did not need to hold a trial for the reception of the evidence of the parties.

Be that as it may, BPI contends that a summary judgment was not proper given the following issues that the parties raised: 1) whether or not the loan agreements between them were valid and enforceable; 2) whether or not the Yus have a cause of action against BPI; 3) whether or not the Yus are proper parties in interest; 4) whether or not the Yus are estopped from questioning the foreclosure proceeding after entering into a compromise agreement with Magnacraft; 5) whether or not the penalty charges and fees and expenses of litigation and publication are excessive; and 6) whether or not BPI violated the Truth in Lending Act. (RULES OF COURT, Rule 35, Sec. 5).

But, the Supreme Court held that these are issues that could be readily resolved based on the facts established by the pleadings and the admissions of the parties. (A.M. No. 03-1-09-SC, Guidelines to be Observed by Trial Court Judges and Clerks of Court in Conduct of Pre-trial and Use of Deposition-Discovery Measures, August 16, 2004).  Indeed, BPI has failed to name any document or item of fact that it would have wanted to adduce at the trial of the case. A trial would have been such a great waste of time and resources. Otherwise stated, a summary judgment is apt when the essential facts of the case are uncontested or the parties do not raise any genuine issue of fact. (BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, INC., vs. SPS. NORMAN AND ANGELINA YU, G.R. No. 184122, January 20, 2010, ABAD, J.).