SUMMARY JUDGMENT:

Summary judgments are proper when, upon motion of the plaintiff or the defendant, the court finds that the answer filed by the defendant does not tender a genuine issue as to any material fact and that one party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. (Rules of Court, Rule 35.  A deeper understanding of summary judgments is found in Viajar v. Estenzo: (178 Phil. 561 (1979).

                       

         Relief by summary judgment is intended to expedite or promptly dispose of cases where the facts appear undisputed and certain from the pleadings, depositions, admissions and affidavits. But if there be a doubt as to such facts and there be an issue or issues of fact joined by the parties, neither one of them can pray for a summary judgment. Where the facts pleaded by the parties are disputed or contested, proceedings for a summary judgment cannot take the place of a trial.

                 An examination of the Rules will readily show that a summary judgment is by no means a hasty one. It assumes a scrutiny of facts in a summary hearing after the filing of a motion for summary judgment by one party supported by affidavits, depositions, admissions, or other documents, with notice upon the adverse party who may file an opposition to the motion supported also by affidavits, depositions, or other documents x x x.  In spite of its expediting character, relief by summary judgment can only be allowed after compliance with the minimum requirement of vigilance by the court in a summary hearing considering that this remedy is in derogation of a party's right to a plenary trial of his case. At any rate, a party who moves for summary judgment has the burden of demonstrating clearly the absence of any genuine issue of fact, or that the issue posed in the complaint is so patently unsubstantial as not to constitute a genuine issue for trial, and any doubt as to the existence of such an issue is resolved against the movant. (Id. at 572-573. Citations omitted.)

                                    

                            “A summary judgment is permitted only if there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and [the] moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.”( Eland Philippines, Inc. v. Garcia, G.R. No. 173289, February 17, 2010, 613 SCRA 66, 81-82.) The test of the propriety of rendering summary judgments is the existence of a genuine issue of fact, (Estrada v. Consolacion, 163 Phil. 540, 549 (1976).“as distinguished from a sham, fictitious, contrived or false claim.” (Eland Philippines, Inc. v. Garcia, supra at 88.  “[A] factual issue raised by a party is considered as sham when by its nature it is evident that it cannot be proven or it is such that the party tendering the same has neither any sincere intention nor adequate evidence to prove it.  This usually happens in denials made by defendants merely for the sake of having an issue and thereby gaining delay, taking advantage of the fact that their answers are not under oath anyway.” (Concurring Opinion of Justice Barredo in Estrada v. Consolacion, supra at 554. Emphasis supplied.)

                                   

                      In determining the genuineness of the issues, and hence the propriety of rendering a summary judgment, the court is obliged to carefully study and appraise, not the tenor or contents of the pleadings, but the facts alleged under oath by the parties and/or their witnesses in the affidavits that they submitted with the motion and the corresponding opposition.  Thus, it is held that, even if the pleadings on their face appear to raise issues, a summary judgment is proper so long as “the affidavits, depositions, and admissions presented by the moving party show that such issues are not genuine.”( Eland Philippines, Inc. v. Garcia, surpa at 82. Emphasis supplied) (Aniceto Calubaquib et al. vs. Republic of the Phils., G.R. No.  170658, June 22, 2011, DEL CASTILLO, J.)