Republic of the Philippines

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

National Capital Judicial Region
Branch 129, Caloocan City

HYPIG GENETICS INC.

Plaintiff,
Civil Case No. C-22867
-versus- For: Sum of money

SPOUSES JESUS AND

DIVINA ARCEO,
Defendants,
x------------------------x

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Plaintiff, HYPIG GENETICS INC., by counsel and to this

Honorable Court, respectfully moves that rendered, on the following
grounds – judgement.

1. In their answer to the complaint for sum of money,

defendants merely alleged that they specifically deny par. 4, 5, 6, 7
and 8 of the complaint and refer the truth of the matter in their special
and affirmative defense. But a reading of their special and affirmative
defenses shows that they admit their sales transactions with Plaintiff
corporation in the amount of Php 1,271,620.00 and further admit that
only Php695,08.00 were paid out of said purchases leaving a balance
of Php 586,538.00.

2. Moreover, attached to the complaint, as actionable

document, is the acknowledgment of debt executed by defendant
Divina Arceo, to evidence her debt amounting to Php 586,538.00.
They did not question the authenticity under oath which entitles
plaintiff to judgment on the pleadings. ( Capitol Motors Corp. vs. Yabut
32 SCRA 1 (1970)

3. In addition, defendants never deny that despite their

commitments to pay said amount in 40 monthly installments starting
October 30, 2009, no payments were made which is in violation of her
undertaking;

4. Though it was admitted that plaintiff received the amount

of Php8,000.00 from defendants for safekeeping purposes but this was
made on January 19, 2012 or after defendant filed this collection suit
on July 2011. As stated in their acknowledgment of debt, their entire
obligation becomes due and demandable once they failed to pay
installments due for two consecutive months where they agree to pay
penalty interest of two (2%) percent per month in addition to 1% legal
interest per month;

5. By way of compromise, Plaintiff agreed to consider

defendants’ offer to assign and convey the defendant’s Mitsubushi
Canter in favour of the Plaintiff for an amount of 170,000 as initial
down payment for their debt and pay the remaining balance in 84
monthly instalments starting March 1999 to 2000 without any interest
and litigation cost, attached draft copy of the compromise agreement
as Annex A.

6. Regrettably, Defendants were able to assign the subject

vehicle but failed to comply with their commitment to pay their first
instalment and even manifest before the Honorable Court that they
cannot comply with their commitment due to their financial limitation.

7. Section 1 of Rule 35 of The Revised Rules of Court, it

provides that –

Section 1. Summary judgment for claimant.

A party seeking to recover upon a claim, counterclaim, or cross-

claim or to obtain a declaratory relief may, at any time after the
pleading in answer thereto has been served, move with supporting
affidavits, depositions or admissions for a summary judgment in his
favor upon all or any part thereof.

8. In the case of PHILIPPINE BANK OF COMMUNICATIONS

versus Spouses Jose C. Go and Elvy T. Go (G.R. No. 175514, February
14, 2011) –

Summary judgment or accelerated judgment is a device for

weeding out sham claims or defenses at an early stage of the
litigation, thereby avoiding the expense and loss of time involved in a
trial. Under the Rules, Summary judgment is appropriate when there
are no genuine issues of fact which call for the presentation of
evidence in a full-blown trial. Even if on their face the pleadings
appear to raise issues, when the affidavits, depositions and admissions
show that such issues are not genuine, then summary judgment as
prescribed by the Rules must ensue as a matter of law. The
determinative factor, therefore, in a motion for summary judgment, is
the presence or absence of a genuine issue as to any material fact.

9. In the light of the foregoing, since the defendants’ answers

posit no genuine issue which requires a full-blown trial, summary
judgment must ensue as a matter of law.

10 In support of this motion, judicial affidavit of Darwin Fajardo

together with the corresponding attachments ( Exhibits A to R) is
hereto attached as Annex B;

WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that summary be

rendered in favor of the plaintiff, ordering defendants to pay plaintiff
as prayed for in the complaint after deducting the following as
payments –

a. 8,000 paid on January 19,2012 after the filing of the complaint

and

b. P 170,000 – the agreed value of the vehicle.

Plaintiff also prays for such other reliefs just and equitable in the
premises.

Tarlac City to Caloocan City, October 8, 2013.

ROBERTO E. GO
Counsel for the Plaintiff
3rd Floor Sound Option Building,
McArthur Highway, Tarlac City, Tarlac
IBP Lifetime No. 526994: 01-25-01: Pasig City
PTR No. 2403683- 01/04/13 Tarlac City
Roll of Attorney's Number 39455
MCLE Compliance No. IV-0014657
Email: attorneygo@yahoo.com
Contact No. 09209081699

VERIFICATION

I, Darwin Fajardo of legal age and with business address at 122

General Concepcion Street Caloocan City , after having been duly
sworn, depose and say:

1. I am the duly authorized representative of the Plaintiff

Corporation in the above entitled Motion;

2. That I have caused the preparation by my counsel of said

Motion;

3. That I have read the allegations therein contained, and that

the same are true and correct of my personal knowledge or
based on authentic records.

Witness my hand this __________ at Tarlac City.

 DARWIN FAJARDO
Affiant

NOTICE OF HEARING

BRANCH CLERK OF COURT

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
Branch 129, Caloocan City

Greetings:

Please take notice that the undersigned counsel will submit the
foregoing motion for judgement based on the pleadings and approval
by this Honorable Court on October 18, 2013, 2013 at 8:30 in the
morning.

ROBERTO E. GO

EXPLANATION: Due to lack of office staff to personally deliver the

above motion, it is respectfully submitted that there is sufficient
justification for furnishing the latter with copies of the instant motion
by registered mail instead of personal service.

ROBERTO E. GO

Copy Furnished:

Atty. Rodolfo P. Libatique

Medina Libatique and Associates Law Offices
96, Bakawan Street, Project, Quezon City
Hypig-arceo