7 minute read
Stronger drive vs corruption
The power of the trial court to render a summary judgment, on its own initiative, was first introduced in the 2019 Amendments to the Rules of Civil Procedure. This was done in order to give the trial court the power to render judgment without trial if it is apparent on the pleadings, documents and evidence available to the court that it is a waste of time for the court and the parties to proceed to trial.
In the case of Ley Construction and Development Corporation, et al. v. Union Bank of the Philippines, “[Petitioners] admitted their indebtedness . . . to [respondent]. The only defense interposed by [them] was that [they], in a series of conferences made in the office of [the respondent] Corporation, were granted extensions of time within which to pay and/or settle said accountabilities” (G.R. 133801, June 27, 2000).
“However, [petitioners] failed to indicate and specify in their Answer to the complaint who the officers were [through] whom [respondent] granted extensions, if at all they were granted. [Petitioners] did not even bother to submit any affidavits of [the] officers… to enable… the [trial court] to ascertain whether or not the defense of [petitioners] was, at least, plausible and not contrived or sham” (G.R. 133801, June 27, 2000).
“This is a proper subject of summary judgment.
The rendition by the court of a summary judgment does not always result in the full adjudication of all the issues raised in a case. The court may issue “an order specifying the facts that appear without substantial controversy, including the extent to which the amount of damages or other relief is not in controversy, and directing such further proceedings in the action as are just” (Section 4, Rule 35).
“This is what is referred to as a partial summary judgment… [it was] never intended to be considered a ‘final judgment,’ as it does not ‘[put] an end to an action… [T]he Rules provide for a partial summary judgment as a means to simplify the trial process by allowing the court to focus the trial only on the assailed facts… [or] those facts which are not in dispute’” (G.R. 178899, November 15, 2010).
“After this sifting process, the court is instructed to issue an order, the partial summary judgment, which specifies the disputed facts that have to be settled in the course of trial. In this way, the partial summary judgment is more akin to a record of pre-trial, an interlocutory order, rather than a final judgment” (G.R. 178899, November 15, 2010).
“[A] partial summary judgment… does not put an end to the action at law by declaring that the plaintiff either has or has not entitled himself to recover the remedy he sues for [and] cannot be considered a final judgment.
“It remains to be an interlocutory judgment or order, instead of a final judgment, and is not to be dealt with and resolved separately from the other aspects of the case” (G.R. 205698, July 31, 2018).
In the case of Philippine Business Bank v. Felipe Chua, “the partial summary judgment in question resolved only the cross-claim made by PBB against its co-defendant, respondent Chua, based on the latter’s admission that he signed promissory notes as a co-maker in favor of PBB” (G.R. 178899, November 15, 2010).
“Clearly, this partial summary judgment did not dispose of the case as the main issues raised in plaintiff Tomas Tan’s complaint, i.e., the validity of the secretary’s certificate which authorized John Dennis Chua to take out loans, and execute promissory notes and mortgages [using CST’s properties as collateral]…, as well as [its] validity… [which] remained unresolved” (G.R. 178899, November 15, 2010).
“[T]he partial summary judgment is an interlocutory order which could not become a final and executory judgment, notwithstanding respondent Chua’s failure to file a certiorari petition to challenge the judgment.
“Accordingly, the RTC grievously erred when it issued the writ of execution against respondent Chua” (G.R. 178899, November 15, 2010).
In the case of Home Development Fund v. Sagun, plaintiffs Globe Asiatique and Delfin Lee’s motion for summary judgment was granted by the Regional Trial Court of Makati.
The latter declared the plaintiffs were entitled to specific performance but the exact amount of damages will have to be determined during the trial proper (G.R. 205698, July 31, 2018).
The Supreme Court in the same case declared that a partial summary judgment is an interlocutory order and not a final judgment.
Hence, the remedy available to HDF is a Petition for Certiorari and not an appeal, for only a final judgment or order could be appealed (G.R. 205698, July 31, 2018).
The latest Pulse Asia survey found 84 percent of 1,200 respondents agreed with this statement: “Pursuant to the Philippines’ concurrence with international agreements, the power of national agencies, laws, and mechanisms to fight corruption should be strengthened.”
A total 36 percent said they “strongly agree” while 48 percent said they “somewhat agree” with the statement. What’s interesting is that most of those who agreed the government should do more to curb corruption come from Mindanao (92 percent) and Visayas (89 percent), where poverty levels are higher as compared to NCR (82 percent) and Balance Luzon (80 percent).
The result of the survey, from June 19 to 23 and commissioned by Stratbase ADR Institute, indicates nearly all Filipinos consider corruption as an enormous challenge that should compel government to take firm steps to solve.
According to Pulse Asia President Dr. Ronald Holmes, “virtually no one” disagrees with the strengthening of the agencies, laws, and mechanisms to fight corruption. He observed the usual proposal in the past was for the government to establish a single, well-resourced anti-corruption agency which has fiscal autonomy and is insulated from partisanship and political interference.
What’s starkly clear is past administrations simply ignored the recommendation, leading to what the World Bank claimed has been the loss of about one-fourth of the total annual national budget to inveterate crooks in government.
The survey also yielded various answers to what the respondents felt were the negative effects of corruption in Philippine society.
Respondents said corruption erodes trust in government services and public officials; creates a normalized attitude towards corrupt practices; results in inefficient delivery of basic social services as health and education; leads to less public funds devoted to fighting poverty; and produces substandard infrastructure.
Given this range of the negative consequences of corruption in our public life, the question that needs to be answered now is whether this government is willing to take the road less traveled and embark on an honest-to-goodness anti-corruption drive that will spare no one, from the big fish to the small fry.
It has five more years to prove that it really listens to what Filipinos are saying.
Transparent and clean polls
IS IT too early to talk about the upcoming midterm elections in 2025?
For the National Movement for Free Elections (Namfrel), no, it isn’t.
For the fierce advocate of free and fair elections in this country, there’s not much time to lose in making the fully automated 2025 midterm polls a political exercise that truly upholds democratic principles.
The poll watchdog wants the Commission on Elections (Comelec) to observe “the standards of transparency, cost-effectiveness, accessibility and inclusivity, reliability, security, safety, and fairness” in the 2025 elections.
For the Comelec to show it really upholds transparency, Namfrel said, it should publicize every step of the upcoming election process.
The public must be able to see and understand every step of the election process and the Automated Election System (AES), and it must be clear who is responsible for each step, what they have to do, and how they will be held accountable. For Namfrel, “transparency means the auditability of the AES and the entire election process from beginning to end.”
It means that an independent verification and examination by entities outside the Comelec would ensure the accuracy and integrity of the electoral process.
The poll watchdog also emphasized that “all steps must be traceable” from the ballot filled up by voters up to the Voter Verified Paper Audit Trail (VVPAT), the canvassing and consolidation.
This would require “the maintenance of an audit trail and comprehensive documentation, including all logs, throughout the electoral process.”
This also requires that all important actions, transactions, and decisions connected to the automated system should be documented and made available to the public on the Comelec website.
The poll watchdog emphasized this point apparently because a group of former government officials filed a petition to disqualify Smartmatic last month from joining Comelec’s future bidding processes, citing “material discrepancies” in the electoral returns counted between the precincts and the Comelec Transparency Server. Namfrel also suggests prudent spending of public funds for the upcoming elections. It wants the government to put in place several procurement law reforms to encourage more suppliers and contractors to join the biddings of the Comelec and “level the playing field” of the procurement process.
That’s because since 2010, only controversial technology provider Smartmatic Philippines has won all biddings conducted by the Comelec.
Namfrel also wants the upcoming budget deliberations in Congress to decide on the budget allocation for the Comelec for the 2025 polls. This would determine how much Comelec can spend on the procurement of equipment for the planned 2025 Automated Election System.
The poll watchdog said that all AES software should “not be proprietary” and should use a General Public License or Election Technology Public License to ensure that it can be reviewed by everyone. There should also be greater competition in the procurement process to ensure that the supplier with the greatest capability can deliver what’s needed “at a low, but not the lowest price.”
With the procurement for the automated elections scheduled in 2024, Namfrel suggested two procurement reforms that it said would open the bidding process to more service providers.
One, Congress should eliminate the provision demanding prior use of the system in other countries, which hinders Filipino service providers from being considered.
And two, the Government Procurement Policy Board should exempt the AES from the Single Largest Completed Contract requirement, which currently disqualifies potential bidders with contracts below a certain percentage of the approved budget.
“Removal of these requirements will open the playing field for local Filipino bidders and further the standard of cost-effectiveness and showcasing the Filipino IT expertise that we so proudly export and/or being used by so many multinational BPO companies operating in the Philippines,” the group said.
In addition, all procured equipment should remain usable for all electoral exercises “instead of these remaining only in storage in
