NATIONAL MARKETING CORPORATION (NAMARCO), JOVENAL ALMENDRAS PETITIONERS, VS. HON. GAUDENCIO CLORIBEL, IN HIS CAPACITY AS DIS­TRICT JUDGE OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF MA­NIL…

Before Us now is
a motion for reconsideration or clarification filed in due time by respondents
based on the following grounds:

“1. The Court erred in resolving the question presented before it
in this special civil action by ruling on the correctness, as a matter of law, of the summary
judgment rendered by the respondent Judge. 
The summary judgment of the
lower court is not in issue in this case, for the reason precisely that
it is the subject of the appeal
filed by petitioners with this
Court in G. R. N. L-27441.

“2. Assuming, arguendo, that the present controversy cannot be
resolved without deciding the merits of the summary judgment rendered by the respondent court, justice and fair
play demand that the factual and evidentiary basis supporting the summary judgment
should have been taken to account.  This
basis may be found in the records of G. R. No. L-27441, and this basis, we
submit, supports in law the decision of the lower court.

“In the
alternative that this Court finds it neither necessary nor appropriate to recon­sider
its decision in this case, respondents respectfully pray for clarificatory
judgment holding that its resolution of the question presented in this case is without prejudice to, and does necessarily foreclose,
the merits of the controversy involved in G. R. No. L­-27441.”

In our decision
promulgated on April 29, 1968 We held, among other things, that the respondent
court had erred:  (1) in admitting the
amended complaint filed in Civil Case No. 64696 because it resulted in
transforming the original special civil action
for mandamus into an ordinary civil action for specific performance; (2) in
rendering, on motion of VILTRA, a summary partial decision inspite of the fact
that in the answers filed by the de­fendants they had assailed the contract
which VILTRA sought to enforce as not having been duly perfected, and as one
against public policy, and on the further ground that VILTRA itself had committed a breach of its obli­gations
thereunder.

In connection with the
foregoing, We also made the following observations –

“It is obvious, therefore, that the amended pleading, which
changed the very nature of the action, was clearly intended to correct VILTRA’s
error in instituting a special civil
action for mandamus to enforce contractual
obligations, and that the
partial decision summarily rendered by the respondent judge under the
irregular circumstances des­cribed above was intended to replace the un­warranted
preliminary writ of mandatory in­junction issued by him before the filing and
admission of the last amended complaint.

“With regards to the rendition of the summary partial
decision, it is clear that the same was irregular because in both answers filed
by NAMARCO – one to the first amended complaint for mandamus, and the other to
the last or second amended entitled “For Specific Performance and Damages’
? the illegality and unenforceability of alleged contract between VILTRA
and NAMARCO – on both legal and factual grounds – was duly raised.  Consequently, it was, to say the least, im­provident
to issue preliminary mandatory injunction for its performance, or rendered
partial judgment precisely requiring compliance with one of its essential
features or stipulations.  Having arrived
at this conclusion, It follows that the several writs issued by the respondent
judge for it execution are likewise irregular and void.”

Upon the above premises
We issued the writs of certiorari and prohibition prayed for in the verified
peti­tion filed by petitioners herein.

The allegation made in
the motion before Us to the effect that We had erroneously ruled “on the
correctness, as a matter of law, of the summary judgment rendered by the respondent
judge” inspite of the fact that said judgment was not in issue, is based upon an apparent misapprehension of
the meaning of our decision.  We say in this connection that We did not rule on the
merits of said decision.  In other
words We did not hold that it was correct or otherwise.  What We said was this:  that the validity of the contract sought to be enforced by action
having been raised as an issue on factual as
well as
legal grounds, the respondent
court was not in a position to render a summary judgment.
Moreover, if the summary judgment which
said court rendered was the one provided for in Rule 36 of the Rules of Court,
the facts of record clearly show that the requirements thereof were not
complied with.

The second point raised
in the motion for reconsideration is virtually
resolved by what We have said heretofore. 
As We did not decide “the
merits of the summary judgment” already referred to, there is no need to
consider – as respondents pray – the alleged “factual and evidentiary basis” supporting the same.

As to the alternative prayer “for
clarificatory judgment” to make it clear that neither our decision nor our
resolution of the pending motion for reconsideration “is without prejudice
to x x x the merits of the contro­versy involving G. R. No. L-27441”, We
believe that nothing further need be said except this:  that our decision and the present resolution
do not in any way decide the question of whether or not the contract which
VILTRA seeks to enforce against NAMARCO was perfected, and if it was, whether
or not it is valid and binding contract.

PREMISES CONSIDERED, the motion for reconsideration is
denied but our decision is clarified as above set forth.

Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, Makalintal, Zaldivar, Sanchez,
Castro, Angeles and Fernando, JJ., concur.