242. Go v. CA, GR 120040, Jan.
29, 1996, 252 SCRA 564
FACTS
Petitioners filed on August 21, 1989, and later amended on November 20, 1989, a
complaint for recovery of ownership of the subject properties against Manuela before
the Regional Trial Court of Makati City, Branch 136, docketed as Civil Case No. 89-
4839. They alleged payment of five hundred dollars ($500) to Manuela sometime in
1982 by money transfer order through Security Pacific National Bank, and payment of
the entire loan as all their installment payments, if added, will amount to P95, 946.67
which sum is more than their contracted loan. Petitioners also raised as an issue the
alleged invalidity of the extra-judicial foreclosure of the subject properties and usury on
the ground that the stipulated 14% interest p/a exceeds the 12% applicable interest
ceiling. In its answer, Manuela countered that petitioners failed to pay their obligation
and, in fact, argued that it was their continued default thereof which caused their
outstanding debt to increase. Manuela maintained that the extra-judicial foreclosure sale
in question was valid and the 14% stipulated interest was not usurious. Petitioners
subsequently moved for summary judgment attaching their joint affidavit which Manuela
opposed, albeit without attaching its own counter-affidavit. The trial court found that
there are genuine issues of facts that need to be fully ventilated, thus the motion was
denied. Petitioners elevated the case before public respondent Court of Appeals 2 by
way of mandamus to compel the trial court to render summary judgment, but to no avail.
Their motion for reconsideration was denied; hence, the instant petition posing the
above query.
ISSUE
Whether or not respondent court could be compelled by mandamus to grant the motion
for summary judgment when there is no genuine issue as to a material fact raised in the
opposition thereto?
RULING
No. The respondent court could not be compelled by mandamus to grant the motion for
summary judgment when there is no genuine issue as to a material fact raised in the
opposition thereto.
Mandamus lies to compel the performance, when refused, of a ministerial duty, but not
to compel the performance of a discretionary duty. The propriety of rendering summary
judgment under Rule 34 of the Rules of Court rests on the sound exercise of the court's
discretion. Petitioners failed to establish a mandatory and ministerial duty on the part of
the trial court to render summary judgment. Likewise, they failed to show a clear legal
right to the relief sought. Mandamus will not issue to enforce a right which is in
substantial dispute or to which a substantial doubt exists. Litigants, like the herein
petitioners, may not be permitted to impose upon the court their notions of how cases
should be resolved. Neither may they be allowed to direct the exercise of judgment or
discretion by the court in a particular way. The court has to decide a question or issue
according to its own judgment or understanding of the law, as well as the law's
applicability to the attendant facts and circumstances.
Moreover, even if we were to gloss over petitioners' erroneous recourse we find no
reversible error in both the trial court's and respondent court's dispositions. Rule 34 of
the Rules of Court authorizes the rendition of a summary judgment when on motion of
the plaintiff, after the answer to the complaint had been filed, it would appear at the
hearing for such a judgment, from the pleadings, depositions and admissions on file,
together with the affidavits that, except as to the amount of damages, there is no
genuine issue as to any material fact and that the winning party is entitled to a judgment
as a matter of law.3 Petitioners failed to show the absence of any genuine issue that
could necessitate summary judgment. The Court of Appeals correctly ruled that the
controlling factor in a motion for summary judgment is not the submission or non-
submission of counter-affidavits, but the presence or absence of any genuine issue as
to any material fact that would require the presentation of evidence. Where the facts
pleaded by the parties are disputed or contested, proceedings for summary judgment
can not take the place of trial.
