Tubiano v. Razo
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The underlying dispute concerns an ejectment case initiated by the respondent, Leonardo C. Razo, against the petitioner, Nimfa Tubiano. The respondent, as the owner of the premises located at No. 124-C Kampupot Street, 10th Avenue, Kalookan City, had leased the property to the petitioner on a month-to-month basis. The lessor notified the lessee of his intention not to renew the contract in August 1994, a decision reiterated in a final letter dated September 7, 1994, which the petitioner duly received. Subsequently, on October 25, 1994, the respondent filed a complaint for ejectment. Procedural History: The ejectment case was filed before the Metropolitan Trial Court (MTC) of Kalookan City and treated as a summary case. After summons was served, the petitioner filed a motion for extension to file an answer, which was granted. The case was later transferred to another branch for consolidation. The petitioner repeatedly sought postponements for preliminary conferences, citing the need for counsel and then hypertension, supported by a medical certificate. The MTC eventually considered the case submitted for decision based on the complaint's allegations. The MTC rendered judgment in favor of the plaintiff, which was appealed to the Regional Trial Court (RTC). The RTC initially returned the decision for lack of a statement of facts and law, leading to an amended decision. The RTC then directed the parties to submit memoranda, but only the plaintiff complied. The RTC affirmed the MTC's decision. The petitioner's counsel withdrew, and a new counsel entered an appearance, but the RTC proceeded to affirm the MTC's decision. The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC's judgment, and a subsequent motion for reconsideration was denied, leading to the present petition. The Petition: The petitioner seeks review of the Court of Appeals' decision, arguing that the lower courts erred in declaring the ejectment case submitted for decision based solely on the complaint due to her failure to appear at the preliminary conference, thereby violating her right to due process. She also contends that her lease contract was not validly terminated and that the RTC erred in deciding the case on appeal without affording her the opportunity to file a memorandum. The petition is filed under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, seeking to overturn the appellate court's affirmation of the lower courts' rulings.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in finding that the RTC and MTC were correct in declaring the ejectment case as submitted for decision based solely on the facts alleged in the complaint upon failure of petitioner to appear at the preliminary conference on May 25, 1995, thereby depriving petitioner of her right to due process. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in finding that petitioner’s lease contract was validly terminated. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in finding that the RTC was correct in deciding the case on appeal without giving petitioner a chance to file her memorandum.
Ruling
The Petition is devoid of merit. The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of due process and submission for decision based on the complaint: The Court held that the Court of Appeals did not err in affirming the RTC and MTC decisions. The Revised Rules on Summary Procedure are designed for expeditious resolution of ejectment cases. Section 6 of the Rules explicitly states that if the defendant fails to answer, the court shall render judgment as may be warranted by the facts alleged in the complaint. Furthermore, Section 7 provides that the failure of the defendant to appear in the preliminary conference shall entitle the plaintiff to judgment in accordance with Section 6. The petitioner's repeated requests for postponement, including one based on a medical certificate that did not explicitly order rest, and her subsequent failure to appear, justified the submission of the case for decision based on the complaint. The essence of due process is the opportunity to be heard, which was afforded to the petitioner. On the validity of the lease contract termination: The Court found that the lease contract was validly terminated. The lessor notified the lessee of the non-renewal in August 1994 and reiterated this in a letter dated September 7, 1994, which the lessee received. The Court reiterated the principle that in month-to-month leases, the contract is deemed to expire at the end of each month. Therefore, the lessor's intention not to renew was clearly communicated, and the subsequent filing of the ejectment case on October 25, 1994, was not premature. The Court clarified that a demand to vacate is not a jurisdictional requirement when the ground for ejectment is the expiration of the lease term, as opposed to non-payment of rent or breach of conditions. On the failure to file a memorandum: The Court ruled that the RTC was correct in deciding the case on appeal without a memorandum from the petitioner. Administrative Circular No. 28 clarifies that the submission of memoranda is not mandatory. Even if it were, the petitioner's counsel received the order to submit a memorandum on August 7, 1996, giving them until August 22, 1996, to comply. Their failure to file the memorandum within the reglementary period, despite being afforded the opportunity, did not constitute a denial of due process. The responsibility to file the memorandum lies with the counsel, and the reglementary period is counted from the counsel's receipt of the order.
Main Doctrine
Failure to appear at the preliminary conference in ejectment cases under the Revised Rules on Summary Procedure can lead to the submission of the case for decision based solely on the complaint, and failure to file a memorandum after being required to do so does not preclude the court from rendering judgment, as long as the party was afforded an opportunity to be heard.