"xxx.
Firstly, as to the procedural matter raised by the petitioners against respondent UBP's petition for certiorari filed in the Court of Appeals, suffice it to state that the PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT rendered by the RTC being MERELY INTERLOCUTORY in character, it is a trivial matter to discuss whether or not the May 4, 2000 Order granting the Consolidated Motion for Release of Undisputed Balance of Plaintiffs' Funds with Earned Interest became final and executory for respondent UBP's failure to file its petition within the reglementary period within which to do so. The INTERLOCUTOR NATURE of a PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT is provided for under SECTION 4, RULE 35 of the Rules of Court, as amended, to wit:
Section 4. Case not fully adjudicated on motion. — If on motion under this Rule, judgment is not rendered upon the whole case or for all the reliefs sought and a trial is necessary, the court at the hearing of the motion, by examining the pleadings and the evidence before it and by interrogating counsel shall ASCERTAIN WHAT MATERIAL FACTS EXIST WITHOUT SUBSTANTIAL CONTROVERSY and what are actually and in good faith CONTROVERTED. It shall thereupon make 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. The FACTS SO SPECIFIED shall be DEEMED ESTABLISHED, and the TRIAL shall be conducted on the CONTROVERTED FACTS accordingly.
In GUEVARRA v. COURT OF APPEALS, [39] the Court, in interpreting the abovequoted provision instructed that:
A PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT "is NOT a FINAL OR APPEALABLE JUDGMENT." (Moran, Vol. 2, 1970 Edition, p. 189, citing several cases.) "It is MERELY A PRE-TRIAL ADJUDICATION that said ISSUES in the case shall be DEEMED ESTABLISHED for the trial of the case." (Francisco, Rules of Court, Vol. II, p. 429.)
And explained further that:
What the rules contemplate is that the APPEAL FROM THE PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHALL BE TAKEN TOGETHER WITH THE JUDGMENT that may be RENDERED IN THE ENTIRE CASE AFTER A TRIAL IS CONDUCTED on the MATERIAL FACTS on which a SUBSTANTIAL CONTROVERSY EXISTS. This is on the assumption that the partial summary judgment was validly rendered which, as shown above, is not true in the case at bar.[40]
In the case at bar, the May 4, 2000 Order of the RTC is a PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT, having been RENDERED only with respect to the supposed UNDISPUTED REMAINING BALANCE of the three accounts with respondent UBP. It was NOT INTENDED to cover the ENTIRE AMOUNTS sought by the petitioners in their Complaints. This is confirmed by the pronouncement of the RTC in the said Order that "the funds plaintiffs seek to be released so far are MERELY PART of their principal placements"[41]; and that "[t]he actual INTERESTS plaintiffs are entitled to will be decided with the MAIN CASE.[42]
Xxx."
FIRST DIVISION
[ G.R. No. 172552, September 02, 2015 ]
SPOUSES BRENDA GURANGO-REDOR, AND MORENO O. REDOR, AND MA. VICTORIA SAMONTE, JOINTLY WITH HER HUSBAND LAWRENCE C. SAMONTE, PETITIONERS, V. UNION BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT
https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/assets/dtSearch/dtSearch_system_files/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getdoc&DocId=13451&Index=*47d2af93eea3c41eede94fa5db1eb960#:~:text=%22DISSENTING%20OPINION%22
