Lesaca v. Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The underlying dispute concerns an ejectment case filed by Lorenzo P. Lesaca against Alfredo Ravelo for the commercial premises at 671 Sales Street, Sta. Cruz, Manila. The grounds for ejectment were the expiration of a month-to-month lease contract and non-payment of rentals. Procedural History: Lesaca filed an ejectment complaint in the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Manila. After Ravelo failed to appear at a reset preliminary conference, the MeTC declared him in default and subsequently rendered a decision in favor of Lesaca. Ravelo appealed to the Regional Trial Court (RTC), which affirmed the MeTC's decision. Ravelo then filed a petition for annulment with the Court of Appeals, seeking to set aside the lower courts' decisions and remand the case for evidence reception. The Court of Appeals granted this petition, setting aside the MeTC and RTC decisions and remanding the case to the MeTC. The Petition: This case is an appeal by certiorari under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court, filed by Lorenzo P. Lesaca. The petition argues that the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that a declaration of default is prohibited under the Rule on Summary Procedure when a defendant has filed an answer, and in holding that the trial court could not proceed under Section 6 of the Summary Rule after the defendant's failure to appear at the preliminary conference. Lesaca contends that the Court of Appeals should not have set aside the lower courts' decisions and should not have remanded the case for further proceedings.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that Section 5 of the Summary Rule can only be applied when the defendant fails to answer. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that a court is powerless to declare a party in default for failure to attend/comply with the preliminary conference under Section 6 of the Summary Rule. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that a declaration of "as in default" is prohibited by the Rule on Summary Procedure.
Ruling
The petition is denied. The decision of the Court of Appeals is affirmed. The case is remanded to the Metropolitan Trial Court of Manila for further proceedings and reception of evidence in accordance with the Rule on Summary Procedure.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of applying Section 5 of the Summary Rule: The Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' ruling that Section 5 of the Rule on Summary Procedure, which allows for judgment based on the complaint's allegations, is applicable only when the defendant fails to file an answer within the reglementary period. Since Ravelo had filed an answer, the MeTC could not proceed under Section 5. The Court reiterated that the policy of the law favors trying litigated cases on the merits, and default judgments are generally disfavored. On the issue of declaring a party in default for failure to attend the preliminary conference: The Court held that the Court of Appeals correctly ruled that the trial court is not powerless when a party fails to appear at the preliminary conference. However, the proper procedure under Section 6 of the Rule on Summary Procedure is not to declare the defendant in default. Instead, the court should have issued a preliminary conference order clarifying and defining the issues of the case, as the parties failed to reach an amicable settlement. On the issue of the prohibition of "as in default" declaration: The Court agreed with the Court of Appeals that a declaration of "as in default" is prohibited under the Rule on Summary Procedure when a defendant has already filed an answer. The Court cited Section 15(h) of the Rule on Summary Procedure, which prohibits motions to declare a defendant in default. The Court emphasized that judgment by default is disfavored and that the case should proceed to trial on the merits, especially after an answer has been filed.
Main Doctrine
A defendant who has filed an answer cannot be declared in default for failure to appear at the preliminary conference under the Rule on Summary Procedure. The proper procedure is to issue a preliminary conference order defining the issues and thereafter require the parties to submit affidavits and other evidence.