May a Court Motu Proprio Render Judgment on the Pleadings?

May a court motu proprio render judgment on the pleadings under the 2019 Rules of Civil Procedure?

Section 1, Rule 34 of the Rules of Court provides that “[w]here an answer fails to tender an issue, or otherwise admits the material allegations of the adverse party’s pleading, the court may, on motion of that party, direct judgment on such pleading.”[1]

Under this section, a court may render judgment on the pleadings only upon motion.  Section 1 was left untouched by the 2019 amendments to the Rules of Civil Procedure. 

However, the 2019 amendments added a new Section 2 which reads in part as follows:

“Section 2. Action on motion for judgment on the pleadings. — The court may motu proprio or on motion render judgment on the pleadings if it is apparent that the answer fails to tender an issue, or otherwise admits the material allegations of the adverse party’s pleadings. Otherwise, the motion shall be subject to the provisions of Rule 15 of these Rules.”

It seems that Section 2 allows a court to motu proprio render judgment on the pleadings. However, Section 2 needs a bit of deconstruction.  Let us for the nonce disregard the phrase “or on motion” in order to parse the rule.  

“Section 2. Action on motion for judgment on the pleadings. — The court may motu proprio … render judgment on the pleadings if it is apparent that the answer fails to tender an issue, or otherwise admits the material allegations of the adverse party’s pleadings. Otherwise, the motion shall be subject to the provisions of Rule 15 of these Rules.”

Motu proprio (or sua sponte) is used to indicate an act taken by a court without a motion from a party. The phrase “[t]he court may motu proprio render a judgment on the pleadings” is inconsistent with the caption of the section, which speaks of the court’s action on the motion for judgment on the pleadings, as well as with the succeeding sentence which states that “[o]therwise, the motion shall be subject to the provisions of Rule 15.” The caption and the second sentence of Section 2 evidently refer to a previously filed motion for judgment on the pleadings. 

My reading of Section 2 is that a court may not motu proprio render judgment on the pleadings before the termination of the pre-trial and that Section 2, as its caption indicates, refers to a situation where a motion for judgment on the pleadings was filed. Deconstructing Section 2, the meaning that it intends to convey is that the court may forthwith render judgment on the pleadings if it is apparent that the answer fails to tender an issue, or otherwise admits the material allegations of the pleading. Otherwise (i.e., if it is not apparent that the answer fails to tender an issue or otherwise admits the material allegations of the pleading), the motion for judgment on the pleadings shall be treated as a litigious motion in accordance with Section 5(a) of Rule 15 and resolved by the court only after the defendant had submitted an opposition or the period to file it has expired pursuant to Section 5(c) of Rule 15.  The court may in its discretion call for a hearing on the motion.[2] This reading of Section 2 of Rule 34 is consistent with the characterization of a motion for a judgment on the pleadings as a litigious motion.[3]   

Judgment on the pleadings after pre-trial

The court if it finds it proper may motu proprio include in the pre-trial order a statement that the case be submitted for judgment on the pleadings.[4] The judgment on the pleadings shall be rendered within 90 days from termination of the pre-trial. The reason why the court may this time motu proprio render a judgment on the pleadings is that the issues have been threshed out and simplified after the termination of the pre-trial.   

-oOo-

---

[1] Italics supplied.

[2] Section 6 of Rule 15, Rules of Court.

[3] Section 5(a)(x) of Rule 15, Rules of Court.

[4] Section 10 of Rule 18, Rules of Court.