By: Maymay D. Tocalo, August 16, 2018
FACTS:
On 16 May 1986, petitioners filed a complaint for Forcible Entry before the Municipal Trial Court of Rizal, alleging that private respondent, through stealth and strategy, unlawfully took possession of the disputed property and ousted petitioners from their possession thereof. The MTC issued summons stating that the Rule on Summary Procedure in Special Cases shall apply.
On 30 June 1986, the MTC granted the Temporary Restraining Order petitioners prayed for. On 15 August 1986, the MTC required the parties to submit position papers within ten (10) days.
On 19 September 1986, or approximately four (4) months after the filing of the Answer, private respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss alleging that the case should be dismissed outright for failure to state a cause of action. Petitioners submitted an Opposition contending that a Motion to Dismiss is a prohibited pleading under the Rule on Summary Procedure.
On 29 December 1986, the MTC dismissed the case for failure of petitioners' Complaint to state a cause of action in that it failed to identify sufficiently the land subject matter of this case.
Petitioners maintain that the MTC Decision is violative of the Rule on Summary Procedure.
ISSUE:
Whether or not compliance by the Municipal Trial Court with the Rule on Summary Procedure in Special Cases, wanting.
HELD:
Yes, compliance by the MTC with the Rules on Summary Procedure in Special Cases was wanting. For example, 'a preliminary conference during which the Court must clarify and define the issues of the case, which must be clearly and distinctly set forth in the Order to be issued immediately after such preliminary conference" (Section 6), was not -followed. Neither was Section 7 thereof which further requires that within ten (10) days from receipt of the said order, "the parties shall submit the affidavits of witnesses and other evidences on the factual issues defined therein, together with a brief statement of their positions setting forth the law and the facts relied upon by them
It is true that the Rule on Summary Procedure allows the dismissal of a case outright due to failure to state a cause of action. However, such dismissal is a permissible upon the filing of the complaint from a consideration by the Court of the allegations thereof. In this case, the proceedings had gone far afield. The outright dismissal was not ordered upon the filing of the complaint. On the contrary, the MTC made a determination that the case falls under summary procedure, issued summons stating that fact, and subsequently even issued a Temporary Restraining Order.
FACTS:
On 16 May 1986, petitioners filed a complaint for Forcible Entry before the Municipal Trial Court of Rizal, alleging that private respondent, through stealth and strategy, unlawfully took possession of the disputed property and ousted petitioners from their possession thereof. The MTC issued summons stating that the Rule on Summary Procedure in Special Cases shall apply.
On 30 June 1986, the MTC granted the Temporary Restraining Order petitioners prayed for. On 15 August 1986, the MTC required the parties to submit position papers within ten (10) days.
On 19 September 1986, or approximately four (4) months after the filing of the Answer, private respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss alleging that the case should be dismissed outright for failure to state a cause of action. Petitioners submitted an Opposition contending that a Motion to Dismiss is a prohibited pleading under the Rule on Summary Procedure.
On 29 December 1986, the MTC dismissed the case for failure of petitioners' Complaint to state a cause of action in that it failed to identify sufficiently the land subject matter of this case.
Petitioners maintain that the MTC Decision is violative of the Rule on Summary Procedure.
ISSUE:
Whether or not compliance by the Municipal Trial Court with the Rule on Summary Procedure in Special Cases, wanting.
HELD:
Yes, compliance by the MTC with the Rules on Summary Procedure in Special Cases was wanting. For example, 'a preliminary conference during which the Court must clarify and define the issues of the case, which must be clearly and distinctly set forth in the Order to be issued immediately after such preliminary conference" (Section 6), was not -followed. Neither was Section 7 thereof which further requires that within ten (10) days from receipt of the said order, "the parties shall submit the affidavits of witnesses and other evidences on the factual issues defined therein, together with a brief statement of their positions setting forth the law and the facts relied upon by them
It is true that the Rule on Summary Procedure allows the dismissal of a case outright due to failure to state a cause of action. However, such dismissal is a permissible upon the filing of the complaint from a consideration by the Court of the allegations thereof. In this case, the proceedings had gone far afield. The outright dismissal was not ordered upon the filing of the complaint. On the contrary, the MTC made a determination that the case falls under summary procedure, issued summons stating that fact, and subsequently even issued a Temporary Restraining Order.