Martinez v. De la Merced
NEW DOCTRINEFacts
1. The Antecedents: Spouses Antonio and Benedicta Martinez (petitioners) initiated an unlawful detainer case against Bienvenido U. Juan and Sacred Heart School of Malabon, Inc. (private respondents) on August 24, 1979. The petitioners sought to recover possession of the leased premises, alleging that the contract of lease had expired and that the respondents had violated its terms. The private respondents contested these claims, asserting that the lease period was for 25 years from November 8, 1973, and had not yet expired, nor had its terms been violated. 2. Procedural History: The case experienced significant delays, including a suspension of proceedings due to a pending interpleader case filed by the private respondents. After multiple motions to lift the suspension, the Metropolitan Trial Court (MTC) eventually lifted it and ordered the case to be tried under the Rules on Summary Procedure. However, the MTC did not set a preliminary conference and instead required parties to submit affidavits and position papers. The MTC later struck off the private respondents' position paper and counter-affidavit due to a failure to submit a required medical certificate. Consequently, the MTC rendered an ex parte decision in favor of the petitioners. Upon appeal, the Regional Trial Court declared the MTC's judgment void for lack of a mandatory preliminary conference. The Court of Appeals affirmed this decision, citing the mandatory nature of the preliminary conference and the denial of due process to the respondents. 3. The Petition: The petitioners seek a review on certiorari of the Court of Appeals' decision, raising the novel issue of whether the preliminary conference under the Rules of Summary Procedure can be waived, implicitly, by failing to object to its non-observance in the lower court proceedings. They argue that the private respondents' active participation in the MTC proceedings, including filing motions and a motion for reconsideration without raising the issue of the missing preliminary conference, constitutes a waiver of this right. The petitioners contend that the Court of Appeals erred in declaring the MTC proceedings void ab initio and in affirming the Regional Trial Court's decision.
Issue(s)
Whether the preliminary conference under the Rules on Summary Procedure can be waived, albeit impliedly, by failing to object to its non-observance in the proceedings before the inferior court. Whether the failure to conduct a preliminary conference renders the proceedings in the Metropolitan Trial Court void ab initio, and whether the order of the Metropolitan Trial Court expunging private respondents' evidence illegally denied them their day in court.
Ruling
The petition is impressed with merit. The Supreme Court granted the petition, set aside the decision of the Court of Appeals, and affirmed the decision of the Metropolitan Trial Court dated May 26, 1986, in toto.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of waiver of preliminary conference: The Court held that while Section 6 of the Rules on Summary Procedure uses mandatory language ("shall" and "must"), the absence of a preliminary conference does not necessarily render the proceedings void ab initio. The Court noted that the provision is akin to pre-trial under Rule 20 of the Revised Rules of Court, which aims to promote amicable settlement or simplify trial. Jurisprudence indicates that proceedings without pre-trial are voided only if a party suffers substantial prejudice or is denied due process. However, exceptions exist where the issue of pre-trial did not affect jurisdiction because no injury was caused, or conducting another pre-trial would be a superfluity. The Court emphasized that unless substantial prejudice is shown, inadvertent failure to calendar a preliminary conference cannot render proceedings illegal or void. A party's failure to object to the absence of a preliminary conference is deemed a waiver of the right thereto. This is especially true when the party actively participates in the proceedings. The private respondents had multiple opportunities to raise the lack of preliminary conference but failed to do so, constituting a waiver of the irregularity. Their argument that they could not raise the issue due to a motion for reconsideration being prohibited under Section 15 of the Rules on Summary Procedure was deemed specious, as they had filed other disallowed pleadings like motions for extension and reconsideration, indicating negligence rather than a legal impediment. On the issue of the MTC order expunging evidence and the failure to conduct a preliminary conference: The Court found the Court of Appeals' observation that private respondents were illegally denied their day in court to be erroneous. The MTC's order dated April 23, 1986, granting the extension to file the position paper was expressly conditioned upon the timely submission of a medical certificate. The private respondents failed to comply with this condition when they filed their position paper. Therefore, the MTC's order to strike the position paper and counter-affidavit from the record for failure to submit the required medical certificate was not reversible error. The Court reiterated that courts should make full use of preliminary conferences to promote settlement and define issues, but a party's failure to invoke the right to such conference before the trial court constitutes a waiver.
Main Doctrine
The failure to raise the issue of the lack of a preliminary conference before the trial court constitutes a waiver of the right thereto, unless substantial prejudice is shown. The proceedings are not rendered void ab initio solely on the ground of non-observance of a preliminary conference.