Don Tino Realty and Development Corporation v. Florentino (G.R. No. 134222, September 10, 1999)

Petitioner: DON TINO REALTY AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
Respondent: JULIAN FLORENTINO

Topic: Revised Rule on Summary Procedure; Section 3(b) and Section 5

Doctrine: In the case of Gachon vs. Devera, Jr., we ruled that the use of the word “shall” in the Rule on Summary Procedure underscores their mandatory character. “Giving the provisions a directory application would subvert the nature of the Rule on Summary Procedure and defeat its objective of expediting the adjudication of suits. Indeed, to admit a late answer, xxx, is to put a premium on dilatory maneuvers-the very mischief that the Rule seeks to redress.”

Recit-ready: The petitioner seeks to set aside the decision of the Court of Appeals which ordered the admission of a late and defective answer in the ejectment case. The petitioners alleged that the answer of the respondent on the summon was not verified. Hence, it is defective and filed out on time. The respondent, however, argued that his answer was filed late and by a non-lawyer because he is economically destitute. He asked the trial court to consider the same as an honest mistake and excusable negligence. CA reversed the decision of RTC and held that if the answer would be admitted, Don Tino will not suffer prejudice and damage but Florentino will suffer injustice and injury if the same is not considered. The basic issue resolved in the case is whether or not the provisions on the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure may be liberally interpreted to allow the admission of an answer filed 1 day late. The Supreme Court held that the CA's view is misplaced. The liberality in the interpretation and application of the rules applies only in proper cases and under justifiable causes and circumstances. In the case at bar, no satisfactory explanation was offered by the respondent why he was not able to file his answer on time. His allegation that he is economically destitute fails to convince as he did not even wait for the Municipal Trial Court to resolve his motion where he alleged such fact. Thus, the Municipal Trial Court acted correctly when it refused to admit his answer. Consequently, it did not err when it proceeded to render judgment in accordance with section 6 of the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure.

Facts: This appeal seeks to set aside the decision of the CA which ordered the admission of a late and defective answer in an ejectment case.

The petitioner -- Don Tino -- alleged that it is the owner and in peaceful possession of a parcel of land in Bulacan. He filed an ejectment suit against Julian Florentino when the latter occupied a portion of his land by means of force, strategy, and stealth. Since the case falls within the provisions of the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure, the summons was served to the respondent. He was required to answer within 10 days from receipt. The respondent filed his answer through a non-lawyer. His answer was not verified. The trial court set the case for a preliminary conference. Don Tino file a motion for the rendition of judgment and motion to cancel the preliminary conference on the ground that the answer of the respondent was defective and filed out of time.

The respondent -- Julian Florentino -- alleged that his answer was filed late and by a non-lawyer because he is economically destitute. He asked the trial court to consider the same as an honest mistake and excusable negligence. He contends that he was deprived of due process when the lower court disregarded his answer for having been filed late and that there was no forcible entry, strategy, or stealth on his part.

The MTC ruled in favor of the petitioner and declared that the respondent failed to comply with Section 3(b) and Section 5 of the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure. The RTC affirmed MTC's decision. However, the CA reversed the decision of RTC and held that there would be no substantial prejudice and damage on the part of Don Tino if the answer will be admitted. However, Juan Florentino will suffer injustice and injury if the answer is not considered. Hence, the present petition.

Issue: Whether or not the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure may be liberally interpreted in order to allow the admission of an answer filed one day late. >> NO.

Held: No. The Rule on Summary Procedure was promulgated pursuant to Sec. 36 of BP 129:

Sec. 36. Summary procedures in special cases. — . . . The Supreme Court shall adopt special rules or procedures applicable to such cases in order to achieve an expeditious and inexpensive determination thereof without regard to technical rules. Such simplified procedure may provide that affidavits and counter-affidavits may be admitted in lieu of oral testimony and that the periods of filing pleadings shall be non-extendible.

The provisions of the Rule on Summary Procedure which are in point are as follows:

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 to the plaintiff. . . .

Sec. 6. Effect of failure to answer. — Should the defendant fail to answer the complaint within the period above provided, the court, motu propio, or upon 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: . . .

In the case of Gachon v. Devera, Jr., the use of the word "shall" in the Rule on Summary Procedure underscores their mandatory character. "Giving the provisions a directory application would subvert the nature of the Rule on Summary Procedure and defeat its objective of expediting the adjudication of suits. Indeed, to admit a late answer, . . ., is to put a premium on dilatory maneuvers — the very mischief that the Rule seeks to redress." Considering this, the view of the CA that such provisions should be liberally interpreted is misplaced. The liberality in the interpretation and application of the rules applies only in proper cases and under justifiable causes and circumstances. While it is true that litigation is not a game of technicalities, it is equally true that every case must be prosecuted in accordance with the prescribed procedure to ensure an orderly and speedy administration of justice.

In Bayog v. Natino, there is nothing in Section 36 of BP 129 which bars the MCTC from taking cognizance of a belatedly filed answer. The Revised Rule on Summary Procedure, as well as its predecessor, do not provide that an answer filed after the reglementary period should be expunged from the records. As a matter of fact, there is no provision for an entry of default if the defendant fails to file his answer. 

In this case, Florentino offered no proper explanation why he was not able to file his answer on time. His allegation that he is economically destitute fails to convince as he did not even wait for the MTC to resolve his motion where he alleged such fact. Thus, the MTC acted correctly when it refused to admit his answer. Consequently, it did not err when it proceeded to render judgment in accordance with section 6 of the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure. 

PETITION of Don Tino is GRANTED. The decision of CA is reversed and set aside.