CONCRETE AGGREGATES CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, HON. PRISCILA S. AGANA, Regional Trial Court of Cebu City, Branch 24, and VIVIEN S. SORIGUEZ, respondents. G.R. No. 117574, January 2, 1997.
“x x x.
There being genuine issues of fact between the private parties, public respondents correctly denied the motion of petitioner for summary judgment. Where facts pleaded by the parties are disputed or contested proceedings for summary judgment cannot take the place of trial. [Archipelago Builders v. Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R. No. 75282, February 19, 1991, 194 SCRA 207, 212, citing the cases of Auman v. Estenzo., No. L-40500, 27 February 1976, 69 SCRA 524; Lorenzo v. Estenzo, No. L-3306, 29 October 1976, 73 SCRA 630; Viajar v. Estenzo, No. L-45321, 30 April 1979, 89 SCRA 684.]. Trial 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.18 Verily, there is a need to determine by presentation of evidence if respondent is really liable for the stolen articles and for violating its contract for security services with petitioner. Until these issues are determined no legal compensation can take place between the parties. This factual dispute can only be resolved by trying the case on the merits, a process which need not take long to conclude.19
X x x.”