CALIFORNIA AND HAWAIIAN SUGAR CO.; PACIFIC GULF MARINE, INC.

; AND CF SHARP AND COMPANY vs PIONEER INSURANCE AND SURETY CORPORATION (28 November 2000) DOCTRINE: Under the pre-1997 RoC, a preliminary hearing on the affirmative defenses may be allowed when a motion to dismiss has not been filed or when, having been filed, it has not been denied unconditionally. Hence, if its resolution has been merely deferred, the grounds it invokes may still be raised as affirmative defences, and a preliminary hearing thereon allowed.

ISSUE/S: (Issue relevant to CivPro) Did the RTC commit grave abuse of discretion in refusing to grant the Motion for Preliminary hearing that was filed by the petitioners?

HELD: YES.

RATIO/RULING: When this case was pending in the TC, Sec 5, Rule 16 of the pre1997 RoC was still in effect. o Sec 5: Pleading grounds as affirmative defences Any of the grounds provided for in this Rule, except improper venue, may be pleaded as an affirmative defense, and a preliminary hearing may be had thereon as if a motion to dismiss had been filed. According to the respondent, such provision cannot be applied because they have already filed a Motion to Dismiss. SC says: While it is true that Sec 6, Rule 16 of the 1997 Rules specifically provides that a preliminary hearing on the affirmative defenses may be allowed only when no motion to dismiss has been filed, Sec 3 of the same rule also says that courts must resolve a motion to dismiss and prohibits them from deferring its resolution on the ground of indubitability. Sec 6 disallows a preliminary hearing of the affirmative defences because such defence should have already been resolved. In the present case, the TC never categorically resolved the Motion to Dismiss but merely deferred resolution thereof. The TC committed grave abuse of discretion in refusing to grant the Motion to Set Preliminary Hearing for Affirmative Defense. Note that the TC deferred the resolution of the petitioners Motion to Dismiss due to a single issue (on whether or not the charter party of the bill of lading is Baltimore Berth Grain Charter Party). TC had no cogent reason to deny the Motion for Preliminary Hearing for Affirmative Defense.

NATURE: Petition for review on certiorari PONENTE: Panganiban, J. FACTS: Nov 1990 Vessel MV Sugar Lander arrived at the port of Manila carrying a cargo of soybean meal in bulk consigned to several consignees, including Metro. After numerous transfers, offloading, rebagging, and reloading, the respondent claimed that there was a shortage of 255 tons of soybean meal. This shipment was insured with the private respondent against all risk for Php 19++M. Petitioners allegedly refused to settle their respective liabilities, respondent paid the consignee. Nov 1992 Respondent, as alleged assignee of Metro, filed a complaint for damages against the petitioners. Petitioners filed a Motion to Dismiss the complaint, on the ground that respondents claim is premature and should have gone under arbitration. Nov 1992 RTC issued an Order deferring the hearing on the Motion to Dismiss until trial, directed petitioners to file their Answer. MR for MTD was denied, because RTC said that their reason for the MTD must be proven using evidence. Petitioners filed an Answer with Counterclaim and Crossclaim, alleging that respondent did not comply with the arbitration clause of the charter party so complaint was prematurely filed. 1993 Petitioners filed a Motion to Defer Pre-Trial and Motion to Set for Preliminary Hearing the Affirmative Defense of Lack of Cause of Action for Failure to Comply with Arbitration Clause. Respondent did not file an Opposition to these motions. RTC: DENIED Motion to Set for Prelim Hearing; MR also denied CA: Affirmed RTC

DISPOSITION: WHEREFORE, the Petition is GRANTED and the appealed decision is hereby REVERSED. The case is REMANDED to the trial court for preliminary hearing on petitioners affirmative defense. VOTE: 3rd Division, Melo, Vitug,Gonzaga-Reyes, JJ., concur.

Hilma A. NEEFUS vs Ralph L. NEEFUS, et al (1941) DOCTRINE: A sham answer is one which is sufficient on its face but is false in fact. A frivolous answer is one that is lacking in legal sufficiency and which in any view of the facts pleaded does not present a defense. A frivolous or sham answer may be stricken on motion and judgment rendered notwithstanding the same as for want of an answer. Failure to answer and contradict a showing that the allegations of an answer are false must be taken as admitting the truth of the showing.

represent her in connection with replevin action was her attorney, and neither her nor her attorney had anything to do with procuring of the redelivery bond. ISSUE/S: Was the order striking the Answers of the sureties as sham and frivolous proper? HELD: YES. The Answers of the sureties must be stricken as sham and frivolous because one presented no defense and the facts of the other were proven to be false. RATIO/RULING: A sham or a frivolous answer may be stricken on motion and judgment rendered notwithstanding the same as for want of an answer. An answer is frivolous which appears from a bare inspection to be lacking in legal sufficiency and which in any view of the facts pleaded does not present a defense. A sham answer is one which is sufficient on its face but which is false in fact. The falsity of a pleading may be shown by affidavit. Where the falsity of the facts pleaded is established by a clear and unequivocal showing, the failure of the opposing parties to answer and contradict the showing must be taken as admitting the truth. Where the allegations of fact in a pleading are shown to be false, the pleading should be stricken as sham. Defendants Hartwig and McCormicks Answers presented no defense. The statements that they made in the Answers were proven to be false.

NATURE: Appeal from an order striking the Answers of the sureties as sham and frivolous. PONENTE: Peterson, J.

FACTS: This is an action for breach of a defendants redelivery bond in a replevin action. Plaintiff sued defendant Ralph L Neefus to recover possession of certain property. Defendant was permitted to retain physical custody of the property under a receipt which he gave the sheriff. Defendant gave redelivery bond with defendants Hartwig and McCormick as SURETIES. Bond is in the penal sum of 1500USD, and is conditioned for the delivery of the property subject of the replevin to the plaintiff if a delivery was adjudged, and to pay to plaintiff such sum as for any cause may be recovered from the defendant. Plaintiff recovere judgment in the replevin. The judgment was satisfied to the extent of 11.80USD. After execution of judgment in replevin, there was 453.76USD due plaintiff on the judgment. So she sues for the redelivery bond. The sureties submitted identical Answers which indicated that their signatures were allegedly procured by the fraud of the plaintiff and her agents. They said that there was a false representation, that the only obligation under the bond was that the property should remain on the premises of the defendant in the replevin action and not be disposed of in any manner pending the action. Plaintiff moves to strike the Answers as sham and frivolous. She filed an Affidavit that the only person who was authorised to

DISPOSITION: Affirmed.