SECOND DIVISION
SPS. ROGELIO AND
CONCHITA JALIQUE,REPRESENTED
BY THEIR
ATTORNEY-IN-FACT,ROGELIO JALIQUE,
JR.,
Petitioners,
G.R.
No.
148305
November 28, 2003
-versus-
SPS.
EPIFANIO AND
JULIETA DANDAN, SPS. RODOLFO AND BABY DESTURA,SPS. PAENG AND
JESSIE MANALO, SPS. REYNALDO AND NIDA DELA CRUZ,SPS. ALBERTO AND
ANITA EMPLEO, SPS. FELIX AND SOLEDAD BORLAGDATAN,SPS. RODOLFO AND
ADELINA CAGUJAS, SPS. SIMPLICIO AND NORA ANOVER,SPS. GREGORIO AND
LUZ ARCOS, SPS. VERMIN AND JOSEPHINE BOMBITA,VENANCIA VDA. DE
NUESTRO, MARINA VDA. DE GERONIMO,CULASA VDA. DE
HERNANDEZ
AND FILOMENA VDA. DE DACASINAND THE HONORABLE
COURT OF APPEALS,
Respondents.
|
R E S O L U T I O
N
QUISUMBING,
J.:
For Review on
Certiorari
is the Decision,[1]
dated December 27, 2000, of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No.
49978,
annulling the Decision,[2]
dated November 23, 1998, of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasig
City,
Branch 70, in SCA Case No. 1527. The RTC had affirmed in toto the
Decision[3]
of the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Pasig City, Branch 70, in
Civil
Case No. 6303, an unlawful detainer case. The MeTC had rendered a
judgment
in favor of petitioners for respondents' failure to file an Answer. The
Court of Appeals ordered the remand of the case to the MeTC for a trial
on the merits. Petitioners also assail the appellate court's Resolution,[4]
dated May 22, 2001, denying their motion for reconsideration.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The facts, as culled
from records, are as follows:
On August
13,
1997, the spouses Rogelio and Conchita Jalique, represented by their
attorney-in-fact
Rogelio S. Jalique, Jr., filed a Complaint for unlawful detainer
against
respondents before the MeTC of Pasig City, docketed as Civil Case No.
6303.
The Jaliques alleged that they are the registered owners of a 1655 sq.
meter lot and its improvements situated at Palatiw, Pasig City and
covered
by TCT No. PT-93442. The respondents herein are the tenants or lessees
of a portion of said property, having been in possession of the same
for
quite some time, pursuant to month-to-month verbal agreements.
Petitioners
averred that the respondents had arrogantly refused their offer to
formalize
their lease agreement. The petitioners had sought the intercession of
the
Lupong Tagapamayapa, but to no avail, thus giving them no choice but to
terminate the lease agreement with the respondents. The latter,
however,
remained in possession and refused to vacate despite demands made by
the
petitioners.
Respondents did
not
file an Answer to the complaint, but filed a Joint Counter Affidavit[5]
on September 12, 1997, stating that:
(a)
petitioners
were not the owners of the disputed property;chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
(b) some of them
were
not residing or occupying any portion of said land;chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
(c) petitioners
should
pay some of them for the improvements made on the realty in question;
andchanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
(d) petitioners had
no right to oust respondents as they had been paying the rentals,
albeit
without the corresponding receipts from petitioners.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On September 25,
1997,
petitioners filed a Motion for Judgment on the Complaint.
On October 31, 1997,
the
MeTC decided Civil Case No. 6303 as follows:
IN VIEW OF
ALL THE ABOVE, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the plaintiffs
and
against the defendants, ordering the latter and all persons claiming
rights
under them or acting in their authority, to:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
1)
immediately
vacate their respective portions of the premises in question and turn
over
peaceful possession thereof to plaintiffs;
2) pay the
plaintiffs
the following amounts:
(a)
unpaid
rentals in arrears and/or for actual use of the premises in question,
to
be reckoned from October 13, 1997 in the amount of P1,000.00 for each
defendant,
computed monthly, until the premises is actually vacated and turned
over
to plaintiffs;chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
(b) P15,000.00
as and
by way of attorney's fees; and
(c) costs of
suit.
SO ORDERED.[6]
The MeTC found that the
respondents herein had failed to file their Answer and rendered
judgment
on the Complaint, pursuant to Section 6[7]
of the Revised
Rules on Summary Procedure. In other words, the petitioners had
preponderantly
established their cause of action, while the respondents, given their
failure
to file an Answer, had failed to present any evidence to the contrary.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Respondents appealed
to the RTC of Pasig City. The appeal, docketed as SCA Case No. 1527,
raised
new issues such as the absence of proof on the petitioners' capacity as
lessor and the classification of the subject land for residential
purposes.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On November 23, 1998,
the RTC rendered judgment in SCA Case No. 1527 in this wise:
WHEREFORE,
finding no reversible error, the appealed decision is hereby AFFIRMED
in
toto.
SO ORDERED.[8]
In affirming the MeTC
decision
lock, stock, and barrel, the RTC ruled that petitioners had
preponderantly
established their cause of action as respondents failed to file their
Answer. chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Respondents then elevated
the matter to the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 49978 on the
following
grounds:
1. The
Public
Respondents committed reversible error in not considering that the
Private
Respondents are not the proper party in this case, are not the owners
or
lessors of the land occupied by the Petitioners.[9]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
2. The Public
Respondents
committed reversible error in treating this case ordinary (sic)
Unlawful
Detainer Case considering that the Petitioners have practically become
the co-owners of the property they are occupying.[10]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The Court of Appeals
annulled
the RTC decision and decreed that the case be remanded to the MeTC for
hearing on the merits, thus:
WHEREFORE,
premises considered, the Decision dated October 31, 1997 of the MeTC
and
the Decision dated November 23, 1998 of the RTC are hereby ANNULLED AND
SET ASIDE, and this case is remanded to the MeTC so that the same may
be
heard on the merits and with immediate dispatch. No costs.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
SO ORDERED.[11]
The appellate court
held
that both the MeTC and the RTC erred in ignoring respondents' Joint
Counter
Affidavit filed within the 10-day reglementary period to file an Answer
under Section 5[12]
of the 1991
Revised Rule on Summary Procedure. The appellate court pointed out
that while the Joint Counter Affidavit was poorly crafted,
nevertheless,
it should have been considered as petitioners' Answer as it sets forth
petitioners' defenses and raises issues and counterclaims, which should
be considered if justice is to be served. Otherwise put, both the MeTC
and RTC erred in giving premium to matters of form.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Petitioners then moved
for reconsideration, but the appellate court denied the motion.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Hence, this petition
submitting for our resolution, the sole issue of:
WHETHER OR
NOT
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN ANNULLING AND SETTING ASIDE THE
DECISIONS OF THE METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT AND THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
AND ORDERING THAT THIS CASE BE REMANDED TO THE MeTC FOR HEARING ON THE
MERITS.[13]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Petitioners contend
that
the court a quo erred in reversing and annulling the RTC decision, for
in affirming the MeTC, the RTC was merely applying the pertinent
provisions
of the 1991
Revised Rule on Summary Procedure. The Rules
on Summary Procedure were promulgated to achieve an expeditious and
inexpensive determination of cases especially in unlawful detainer
cases
because they involve possession of property posing a threat to the
peace
of our society. Thus, a remand of the case to the MeTC, as decreed by
the
appellate court, would prejudice them and run contrary to the summary
nature
of the proceeding.
The respondents counter
that the remand of the case is not prejudicial to the petitioners, as
it
will give them all the chances to prove their cause of action against
respondents.
It would likewise allow respondents to enjoy their right to be heard in
their defense.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
We find that the situation
obtaining in this case calls for a liberal, not a technical and rigid,
interpretation of the Rules
on Summary Procedure in the light of the presence rather than a
total
absence of a responsive pleading. Our perusal of the respondents' Joint
Counter Affidavit shows that it disputed the material allegations of
the
Complaint and presented valid issues for the lower court's resolution,
such as the ownership of the subject lot, the period of lease, right of
reimbursement for improvements and the right to eject respondents. As
correctly
observed by the Court of Appeals:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
A perusal
of
the Joint Counter Affidavit will reveal that although the same is
unsatisfactorily
crafted, it sets forth the petitioners' defenses. It also raises issues
and counterclaims which require proper consideration if justice is to
be
served, i.e., petitioners' claim on the improvements made upon the
thing
leased; if the requisites of Article 1678 of the New
Civil Code are complied with, the lessees (herein petitioners) will
have the right to reimbursement or if payment is refused by the lessor,
the right of removal. Thus, the requirements of the Rules that the
Answer
shall set forth the defenses and the objections of the defendants
including
the compulsory counterclaim or cross-claim (Section 4, Rule 6; Sections
1 and 2, Rule 9 of the 1997
Rules of Civil Procedure) specifically denying the material
allegation
of fact the truth of which he does not admit (Section 10, Rule 8, 1997
Rules of Civil Procedure) were substantially complied with by the
counter
affidavit filed by the petitioners on time. This counter affidavit
should
have been considered as petitioners' Answer without giving premium on
matters
of form thereby serving the interest of substantial justice
x
x x.[14]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The Court of
Appeals,
thus, committed no reversible error in reversing the RTC and ordering
the
remand of the case to the MeTC. Not all lawyers are gifted with the
skill
to craft pleadings that fully meet the requirements as to substance and
form. But what matters is the substance and not the form. Thus, while a
pleading may be deficient in craftsmanship and can be criticized with
respect
to incidental particulars, it must be deemed sufficient if it fairly
apprises
the adverse party of the claims or contentions therein stated and does
not mislead him to his surprise or injury or when from the allegations
therein, taken together, the matters required to be averred may be
gathered.
In the words of Chief Justice Moran, "Rules of pleadings are intended
to
secure a method by which the issues may be properly laid before the
court.
When those issues are already clear before the court, the deficiency in
the observance of the rules should not be given undue importance. What
is important is that the case be decided upon the merits and that it
should
not be allowed to go off on procedural points."[15]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
WHEREFORE, the petition
is DENIED and the assailed Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R.
SP. No. 49978 is AFFIRMED. No pronouncement as to costs.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
SO ORDERED. chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Puno, Austria-Martinez,
Callejo, Sr. and Tinga, JJ.,
concur.chan
robles virtual law library
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
Penned by Associate Justice Bennie A. Adefuin-De la Cruz, with
Presiding
Justice Salome A. Montoya and Associate Justice Renato C. Dacudao,
concurring.
Rollo, pp. 61–65.
[2]
Rollo, pp. 76–79.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[3]
Id. at 72–75.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[4]
Per Associate Justice Bennie A. Adefuin-De la Cruz, with Associate
Justices
Eloy R. Bello, Jr., and Renato C. Dacudao concurring. Id. at 70–71.
[5]
CA Rollo, pp. 106–111.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[6]
Rollo, p. 75.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[7]
SEC. 6. Effect of failure to answer. — Should the defendant fail to
answer
the complaint within the period above 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: Provided, however, that the court may in its discretion reduce
the amount of damages and attorney's fees claimed for being excessive
or
otherwise unconscionable. This is without prejudice to the
applicability
of Section 4, Rule 18 of the Rules of Court, if there are two or more
defendants.
[8]
Rollo, p. 79.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[9]
CA Rollo, pp. 7–8.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[10]
Id. at 9.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[11]
Rollo, p. 65.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[12]
SEC. 5. Answer. — Within ten (10) days from service of summons, the
defendant
shall file his answer to the complaint and serve a copy thereof on the
plaintiff. Affirmative and negative defenses not pleaded therein shall
be deemed waived, except for lack of jurisdiction over the subject
matter.
Cross-claims and compulsory counterclaims not asserted in the answer
shall
be considered barred. The answer to counterclaims or cross-claims shall
be filed and served within ten (10) days from service of the answer in
which they are pleaded.
[13]
Rollo, p. 156.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[14]
Id. at 64.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[15]
Supio v. Garde, 150-A Phil. 817, 827 (1972).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred |