SUMMARY JUDGMENT

A summary judgment under Rule 35 of the Rules of Court is a procedural technique that is proper only when there is no genuine issue as to the existence of a material fact and the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law (L-33983, January 27, 1983).  It is a method intended to expedite or promptly dispose of cases where the facts appear undisputed and certain from the pleadings, depositions, admissions, and affidavits on record (Sandiganbayan Records, Volume 9, pp. 344-380, 394-417).

Upon a motion for summary judgment the court’s sole function is to determine whether there is an issue of fact to be tried, and all doubts as to the existence of an issue of fact must be resolved againstthe moving party. In other words, a party who moves for summary judgment has the burden of demonstrating clearly the absence of any genuine issue of fact, and any doubt as to the existence of such an issue is resolved against the movant.  Thus, in ruling on a motion for summary judgment, the court should take that view of the evidence most favorable to the party against whom it is directed, giving that party the benefit of all favorable inferences (Sandiganbayan Records, Volume 9, pp. 344-380, 394-417)

The term genuine issue has been defined as an issue of fact that calls for the presentation of evidence as distinguished from an issue that is sham, fictitious, contrived, set up in bad faith, and patently unsubstantial so as not to constitute a genuine issue for trial. The court can determine this on the basis of the pleadings, admissions, documents, affidavits, and counter-affidavits submitted by the parties to the court. Where the facts pleaded by the parties are disputed or contested, proceedings for a summary judgment cannot take the place of a trial [City of Manila v. Laguio, 455 SCRA 308 (2005)].

Well-settled is the rule that a party who moves for summary judgment has the burden of demonstrating clearly the absence of any genuine issue of fact [Banco Espanol-Filipino v. Palanca, 37 Phil 921 (1918)].  Upon that party’s shoulders rests the burden to prove the cause of action, and to show that the defense is interposed solely for the purpose of delay. After the burden has been discharged, the defendant has the burden to show facts sufficient to entitle him to defend (Habana v. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 129418, September 10, 1999).  Any doubt as to the propriety of a summary judgment shall be resolved against the moving party.

We need not stress that the trial courts have limited authority to render summary judgments and may do so only in cases where no genuine issue as to any material fact clearly exists between the parties.  The rule on summary judgment does not invest the trial courts with jurisdiction to try summarily the factual issues upon affidavits, but authorizes summary judgment only when it appears clear that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact (REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. SANDIGANBAYAN, G.R. No. 166859, April 12, 2011, BERSAMIN, J.).