FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 219294. October 12, 2015.]
ABS-CBN CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. WILLIE B. REVILLAME AND ABC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated October 12, 2015 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 219294(ABS-CBN Corporation v. Willie B. Revillame and ABC Development Corporation). — The petitioner's motion for an extension of thirty (30) days within which to file a petition for review on certiorari is GRANTED, counted from the expiration of the reglementary period.
After an assiduous scrutiny of the records, the Court resolves to DENY the instant petition and AFFIRM the October 14, 2014 Decision 1 and July 1, 2015 Resolution 2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 127448 for failure of petitioner ABS-CBN Corporation to sufficiently show that the CA committed any reversible error in upholding the dismissal of its motion for summary judgment for lack of merit.
As correctly ruled by the CA, summary judgment was not proper since there is a necessity to conduct trial to resolve the issue of whether or not the contract subject of this case was validly rescinded through the appropriate extrajudicial means, which circumstances have been clearly disputed by the parties. Indeed, "[t]rial courts have limited authority to render summary judgments and may do so only when there is clearly no genuine issue as to any material fact." 3 To the Court's mind, the foregoing issue constitutes a genuine issue based on its attribution in jurisprudence. As elucidated in Evadel Realty and Development Corp. v. Spouses Soriano, 4 "[a] 'genuine issue' is an issue of fact which requires the presentation of evidence as distinguished from a sham, fictitious, contrived or false claim. When the facts as pleaded appear uncontested or undisputed, then there is no real or genuine issue or question as to the facts, and summary judgment is called for. The 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 patently unsubstantial so as not to constitute a genuine issue for trial. . . . When the facts as pleaded by the parties are disputed or contested, proceedings for summary judgment cannot take the place of trial," 5 as in this case. EATCcI
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) EDGAR O. ARICHETADivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Rollo, pp. 94-109. Penned by Associate Justice Nina G. Antonio-Valenzuela with Associate Justices Vicente S.E. Veloso and Jane Aurora C. Lantion concurring.
2. Id. at 111-112. Penned by Associate Justice Nina G. Antonio-Valenzuela with Associate Justices Noel G. Tijam and Jane Aurora C. Lantion concurring.
3. Evadel Realty and Development Corp. v. Spouses Soriano, 409 Phil. 450, 461 (2001).
4. Id.
5. Id.; citations omitted.