Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1992 > October 1992 Decisions > G.R. No. 96432 October 21, 1992 - LORENZO P. LESACA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 96432. October 21, 1992.]

LORENZO P. LESACA, Petitioner, v. HON. COURT OF APPEALS and ALFREDO RAVELO, Respondents.

Lesaca, Espiritu & Associates Law Offices for Petitioner.

Manuel R. Recto for Private Respondent.


SYLLABUS


1. REMEDIAL LAW; RULES ON SUMMARY PROCEDURE; JUDGMENT BY DEFAULT; CANNOT BE ORDERED WHEN DEFENDANT FILED AN ANSWER TO THE COMPLAINT. — In this case, since Ravelo did file an answer to the complaint, the trial court may not declare him as in default (despite his absence and that of his counsel at the pre-trial conference on May 3, 1990) because a motion to declare the defendant in default is a prohibited pleading under Section 15 (h) of the Rule on Summary Procedure. It is the policy of the law to have every litigated case tried on the merits. It is for this reason that judgments by defaults are generally looked upon with disfavor. As this Court observed in the "case of Coombs v. Santos, (24 Phil. 446): a default judgment does not pretend to be based upon the merits of the controversy. Its existence is justified on the ground that it is the one final expedient to induce the defendant to join issue upon the allegations tendered by the plaintiff, and to do so without unnecessary delay. A judgment by default may amount to a positive and considerable injustice to the defendant; and the possibility of such serious consequences necessitates a careful examination of the grounds upon which the defendant asks that it be set aside."


D E C I S I O N


GRIÑO-AQUINO, J.:


This is an appeal by certiorari, under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court, from the decision dated November 29, 1990 of the Court of Appeals which sets aside the decisions of the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) and the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, Branch III, and remands the case to the MeTC for further proceedings and reception of the parties’ evidence as provided in the Rule on Summary Procedure.

On February 23, 1990, the petitioner, as plaintiff, filed in the Metropolitan Trial Court of Manila (MeTC) a complaint for ejectment against the private respondent, Alfredo Ravelo, to oust him from the commercial premises located at 671 Sales Street, Sta. Cruz, Manila, on the grounds of: (1) expiration of the month-to-month lease contract between the parties; and (2) non-payment of rentals. Ravelo filed an answer to the complaint.chanrobles virtualawlibrary chanrobles.com:chanrobles.com.ph

During the first preliminary conference on April 19, 1990, all the parties were present and duly represented by their respective counsel. However, the preliminary conference was reset to May 3, 1990, upon request of both parties, to give them time to explore the possibility of an amicable settlement and submit a compromise agreement.

On the scheduled date of the next conference, May 3, 1990, only the plaintiff (now petitioner) appeared. On motion of plaintiff’s counsel, the MeTC declared defendant Ravelo "as in default" for failure to appear at the preliminary conference despite previous notice. The court considered the case submitted for decision "as warranted by the facts alleged in the complaint" (p. 35, Rollo).

On May 23, 1990, the MeTC rendered a decision ordering the defendant, Ravelo, to vacate the premises in question.

Said defendant appealed to the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila. After the submission of the parties’ respective memoranda, the RTC promulgated a decision affirming in toto the decision of the MeTC.

Ravelo filed a petition in the Court of Appeals for annulment of the decisions of the MeTC and RTC and to remand the case to the MeTC for reception of evidence.

On November 29, 1990, the Court of Appeals rendered a decision, the dispositive portion of which reads as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"PREMISES CONSIDERED, the Metropolitan Trial Court decision and the respondent court’s decision are hereby SET ASIDE. The case is remanded to the Metropolitan Trial Court, Manila, Branch III for further proceedings and reception of the evidence of the parties as provided in the Rule on Summary Procedure." (p. 21, Rollo.).

Hence, the present petition for review alleging that the Court of Appeals erred:chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

1. when it ruled that the only instance (when) Section 5 of the Summary Rule can be applied is when the defendant fails to answer.

2. when it ruled that should a party fail to attend/comply with the preliminary conference mandated under Section 6 of the Summary Rule, the court below is powerless and has no discretion but to still proceed under Section 6 of same rule to issue an order clarifying and defining the issues of the case and to proceed under Section 7 of same Rule for submission of affidavits of parties.

3. when it ruled that "as in default" declaration is prohibited by the Rule on Summary Procedure.

We find no merit in the petition for review.

Section 6 of the Rule on Summary Procedure provides:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"SECTION 6. Preliminary conference. — Not later than thirty (30) days after the last answer is filed, the case shall be calendared for a preliminary conference. Among other matters, should the parties fell to arrive at an amicable settlement, the court must clarify and define the issues of the case, which must be clearly and distinctly set forth in the order to be issued immediately after such preliminary conference, together with the other matters taken up during the same."cralaw virtua1aw library

As found by the Court of Appeals, when the private respondent (then defendant) and his counsel failed to appear at the pre-trial conference and no compromise agreement was reached by the parties despite the opportunity given them by the court, the situation was similar to that provided in Section 6 of the Summary Rule above quoted. The Court should have issued a "preliminary conference order" defining" the issues in the case as provided in Section 6. Thereafter the parties should have submitted their affidavits and other evidence as provided in Section 7 of the Rule on Summary Procedure, to wit:chanrobles.com.ph : virtual law library

"SECTION 7. Submission of affidavits. — Within ten (10) days from receipt of the order mentioned in the next preceding section, the parties shall submit the affidavits of witnesses and other evidences on the factual issues defined therein, together with a brief statement of their positions setting forth the law and the facts relied upon by them."cralaw virtua1aw library

Only when the defendant failed to answer the complaint may the Court proceed to judgment. Thus does Section 5 provide:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"SECTION 5. Effect of failure to answer. — Should the defendant fail to answer the complaint, crossclaim or permissive counterclaim within the reglementary 10-day period herein provided, the court motu proprio, or on motion of the plaintiff, shall render judgment as may be warranted by the facts alleged in the complaint and limited to what is prayed for therein except as to the amount of damages which the Court may reduce in its discretion."cralaw virtua1aw library

In this case, since Ravelo did file an answer to the complaint, the trial court may not declare him as in default (despite his absence and that of his counsel at the pre-trial conference on May 3, 1990) because a motion to declare the defendant in default is a prohibited pleading under Section 15 (h) of the Rule on Summary Procedure.

It is the policy of the law to have every litigated case tried on the merits. It is for this reason that judgments by defaults are generally looked upon with disfavor. As this Court observed in the "case of Coombs v. Santos, 24 Phil. 446: a default judgment does not pretend to be based upon the merits of the controversy. Its existence is justified on the ground that it is the one final expedient to induce the defendant to join issue upon the allegations tendered by the plaintiff, and to do so without unnecessary delay. A judgment by default may amount to a positive and considerable injustice to the defendant; and the possibility of such serious consequences necessitates a careful examination of the grounds upon which the defendant asks that it be set aside." (Trajano v. Cruz, 80 SCRA 712, 713.).

The same doctrine was laid down by this Court in Rosario v. Alonzo, 8 SCRA 397, where we ruled that "the defendants could not be in default after they had answered the complaint."cralaw virtua1aw library

WHEREFORE, the decision dated November 29, 1990 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 22801 is hereby AFFIRMED. Let the record of this case be remanded to the MeTC of Manila for further proceedings and reception of evidence in accordance with the Rule on Summary Procedure.chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

SO ORDERED.

Cruz, Medialdea and Bellosillo, JJ., concur.

Padilla, J., took no part, related to petitioner




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






October-1992 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 101344 October 1, 1992 - ASSET PRIVATIZATION TRUST v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 46395 October 2, 1992 - ARSENIA LACATAN-NUNEZ v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 79374 October 2, 1992 - TOMAS G. MAPA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 80256 October 2, 1992 - BANKERS & MANUFACTURERS ASSURANCE CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 83369 October 2, 1992 - PACITA J. BAGUIORO v. MARIANO Y. BASA, JR.

  • G.R. Nos. 84902-03 October 2, 1992 - AGRIPINO PADRE, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 90530 October 7, 1992 - INTERNATIONAL CONTAINER TERMINAL SERVICES, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 93406 October 7, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROGER AREVALO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 93474 October 7, 1992 - VIRGINIA OCAMPO JUAREZ v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 98093 October 8, 1992 - PRIMA K. GOBANTES v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSlON, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 90440-42 October 13, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LI WAI CHEUNG

  • G.R. No. 92416 October 13, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JEFFREY LOGRONIO

  • G.R. No. 97651 October 13, 1992 - OSCAR C. VALLE v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 100754 October 13, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. IRENE D. SIMBULAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 101438 October 13, 1992 - CATHEDRAL SCHOOL OF TECHNOLOGY, ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 102787 October 13, 1992 - YUSOPH C. TAMANO v. RAUL S. MANGLAPUS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 96617 October 14, 1992 - LOLITA B. JAVIER v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 95492 October 15, 1992 - MIDLAND INSURANCE CORPORATION v. SECRETARY OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 100797 October 15, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. HADJI JAID HASIRON

  • G.R. No. 47890 October 16, 1992 - ACTING COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS v. WISE & COMPANY, INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 65663 October 16, 1992 - DIRECTOR OF LANDS v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 85466 October 16, 1992 - HUALAM CONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT CORP., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 85517 October 16, 1992 - DOROTEO OCHEDA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 97240 October 16, 1992 - JESUS T. DAVID v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 100773 October 16, 1992 - PHILIPPINE PORTS AUTHORITY, ET AL. v. COMMISSION ON AUDIT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 70789 October 19, 1992 - RUSTAN PULP & PAPER MILLS, INC., ET AL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 75584 October 19, 1992 - VICENTE PALO-PALO v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 82770 October 19, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RICARDO V. PAJARIT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 90452 October 19, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARIO JAYMALIN

  • G.R. No. 90603 October 16, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANGEL S. FABROS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 91869 October 19, 1992 - MARCELINA SAPU-AN, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 92020 October 19, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ELISEO A. MARTINADO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 103328 October 19, 1992 - ROY A. PADILLA, JR. v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS

  • A.M. No. 92-1-084-RTC October 20, 1992 - FLORENCIA SEALANA-ABBU v. FLORANTE E. MADRONO

  • G.R. No. 35947 October 20, 1992 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. WILLIAM LI YAO

  • G.R. No. 92849 October 20, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TIRZO CELIZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 97227 October 20, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CECILIO BINONDO

  • G.R. No. 97389 October 20, 1992 - SPS. ALEX BUSANTE, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 97433 October 20, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. APOLINARIO SARENSE

  • G.R. No. 106971 October 20, 1992 - TEOFISTO T. GUINGONA, JR., ET AL v. NEPTALI A. GONZALES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 78161 October 21, 1992 - CRESENCIO LIMCAY v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 83105 October 21, 1992 - MAGDALENA M. FERMIN v. SECRETARY OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 96432 October 21, 1992 - LORENZO P. LESACA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 96469 October 21, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TEOFILO VILLANUEVA

  • G.R. No. 96621 October 21, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOEY B. BODOZO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 100909 October 21, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SOLITO TENA

  • G.R. No. 103119 October 21, 1992 - SULPICIO INTOD v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-44112 October 22, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CRISPULO DE LOS REYES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 75954 October 22, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DAVID G. NITAFAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 100091 October 22, 1992 - CENTRAL MINDANAO UNIVERSITY v. DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM ADJUDICATION BOARD, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 80418-19 October 23, 1992 - EDUARDO ROSALES, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 88113 October 23, 1992 - SPS. TITUS L. ENDAYA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 89804 October 23, 1992 - CALVIN S. ARCILLA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 106522 October 23, 1992 - ARNOLD VEGAFRIA v. CATALINO CASTAÑEDA, JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 78173 October 26, 1992 - ANDRES SUMAOANG v. REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH XXXI, GUIMBA, NUEVA ECIJA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 95259 October 26, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BERNARDO PERAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 98152-53 October 26, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ARMANDO G. PASILIAO, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. MTJ-91-600 October 27, 1992 - EMMANUEL RAMOS v. JOSELITO SD. GENEROSO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 94523 October 27, 1992 - ST. THERESITA’S ACADEMY v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 95333 October 27, 1992 - SPS. FRAULIN A. PEÑASALES, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 95684 October 27, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ELORDE ANTUD

  • G.R. No. 95816 October 27, 1992 - PHIL. NATIONAL CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 104906 October 27, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BALTAZAR ESTRAÑA, JR.

  • G.R. No. 67973 October 29, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CONRADO G. LAGMAY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 88954 October 29, 1992 - DATU SAMAD MANGELEN v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 90637 October 29, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PRUDENCIO PUGAL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 100916 October 29, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JONATHAN L. PADUA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 84841 October 30, 1992 - SPS. SALUSTIANO OCA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 97495 October 30, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RENATO MANCAO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 100643 October 30, 1992 - ADEZ REALTY, INCORPORATED v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 102904 October 30, 1992 - PHILIPPINE INTERNATIONAL TRADING CORPORATION v. M.V. ZILEENA, ET AL.