By: Maymay D. Tocalo, August 16, 2018
FACTS:
Santiago leased for Gem-Luck space located at Makati, and belonging to the lessor, the Alyssia International Trade. The term was for one year commencing on March 15, 1987. A cash deposit equivalent to two months rental was made upon the execution of the contract.
On January 22, 1988, the lessor filed a complaint for ejectment on the ground of non-payment of rentals and prayed for a writ of preliminary attachment, which was granted.
On January 24, 1988, the lessee received summons and a copy of the complaint, with notice that the case would be heard under the Rule on Summary Procedure. On January 29, 1988, the petitioners moved for an extension of 10 days from February 1, 1988, to file their answer, giving pressure of work as their reason. On February 8, 1988, Judge Romeo J. Lapuz of the Metropolitan Trial Court of Makati rendered a decision in favor of the lessor.
The petitioners filed their answer on February 11, 1988. Five days later, they were notified of the decision and the denial of their motion for extension of time to file their answer.
On March 24, 1988, the private respondent filed a motion for the withdrawal of the petitioners' deposit with the court because of their failure to pay the rentals for February and March. The motion was granted.
The petitioners' motion for reconsideration having been denied, a writ of execution was finally issued on December 1, 1988. Petitioner Cynthia Santiago's deposit with Metro Bank was garnished on December 8, 1988. The petitioners filed yet another urgent motion to lift and recall the writ, which was also denied. Frustrated all the way, they have now come to this Court for relief, claiming grave abuse of discretion on the part of the respondent judges.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the court acted properly when it motu proprio decided the case on the basis of the allegations and evidence of the complaint only.
HELD:
The petitioners received the summons on January 24, 1988. Instead of submitting an answer, they filed a motion for extension of time to file their answer, which motion was a prohibited pleading under Sec 15. The answer was finally filed on February 11, 1988, eight days in excess of the period allowed by the Rule. The court therefore acted properly when it motu proprio decided the case on the basis of the allegations and evidence of the complainant only. Having failed to file their answer on time, the petitioners cannot now claim that they were denied due process.
It should be added that even if the motion for extension of time were not a prohibited pleading, the petitioners had no right to assume that it would be automatically granted, especially if it is considered that they did not offer a satisfactory reason for the extension they were seeking.
At any rate, such an extension would militate against the following provision of the Rule on Summary Procedure, which are precisely intended to expedite the proceedings in the cases mentioned therein:
Sec. 4. Answer.- Upon being served with summons, the defendant must answer the complaint within ten (10) days from service thereof. The answer to a counterclaim or crossclaim must be filed within ten (10) days from service thereof.
Sec. 5. Effect of failure to answer. - Should the defendant fail to answer the complaint, crossclaim or permissive counterclaim within the reglementary 10-day period herein 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 except as to the amount of damages which the court may reduce in its discretion.
FACTS:
Santiago leased for Gem-Luck space located at Makati, and belonging to the lessor, the Alyssia International Trade. The term was for one year commencing on March 15, 1987. A cash deposit equivalent to two months rental was made upon the execution of the contract.
On January 22, 1988, the lessor filed a complaint for ejectment on the ground of non-payment of rentals and prayed for a writ of preliminary attachment, which was granted.
On January 24, 1988, the lessee received summons and a copy of the complaint, with notice that the case would be heard under the Rule on Summary Procedure. On January 29, 1988, the petitioners moved for an extension of 10 days from February 1, 1988, to file their answer, giving pressure of work as their reason. On February 8, 1988, Judge Romeo J. Lapuz of the Metropolitan Trial Court of Makati rendered a decision in favor of the lessor.
The petitioners filed their answer on February 11, 1988. Five days later, they were notified of the decision and the denial of their motion for extension of time to file their answer.
On March 24, 1988, the private respondent filed a motion for the withdrawal of the petitioners' deposit with the court because of their failure to pay the rentals for February and March. The motion was granted.
The petitioners' motion for reconsideration having been denied, a writ of execution was finally issued on December 1, 1988. Petitioner Cynthia Santiago's deposit with Metro Bank was garnished on December 8, 1988. The petitioners filed yet another urgent motion to lift and recall the writ, which was also denied. Frustrated all the way, they have now come to this Court for relief, claiming grave abuse of discretion on the part of the respondent judges.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the court acted properly when it motu proprio decided the case on the basis of the allegations and evidence of the complaint only.
HELD:
The petitioners received the summons on January 24, 1988. Instead of submitting an answer, they filed a motion for extension of time to file their answer, which motion was a prohibited pleading under Sec 15. The answer was finally filed on February 11, 1988, eight days in excess of the period allowed by the Rule. The court therefore acted properly when it motu proprio decided the case on the basis of the allegations and evidence of the complainant only. Having failed to file their answer on time, the petitioners cannot now claim that they were denied due process.
It should be added that even if the motion for extension of time were not a prohibited pleading, the petitioners had no right to assume that it would be automatically granted, especially if it is considered that they did not offer a satisfactory reason for the extension they were seeking.
At any rate, such an extension would militate against the following provision of the Rule on Summary Procedure, which are precisely intended to expedite the proceedings in the cases mentioned therein:
Sec. 4. Answer.- Upon being served with summons, the defendant must answer the complaint within ten (10) days from service thereof. The answer to a counterclaim or crossclaim must be filed within ten (10) days from service thereof.
Sec. 5. Effect of failure to answer. - Should the defendant fail to answer the complaint, crossclaim or permissive counterclaim within the reglementary 10-day period herein 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 except as to the amount of damages which the court may reduce in its discretion.
