Case Digest (G.R. No. L-44388)
Facts:
- Victoriano Bulacan filed a complaint for forcible entry and damages against Faustino and Felipa Torcino in the Municipal Court of Baybay, Leyte, on August 4, 1972.
- The complaint was signed by Nicolas Nunes, Jr., who identified himself as "Friend counsel for the Plaintiff," but was verified by Bulacan.
- The verification indicated that Bulacan prepared the complaint with Nunes' assistance.
- The defendants did not contest the signing of the complaint initially.
- On February 10, 1973, the municipal court ordered the parties to propose a compromise agreement, failing which a judgment would be rendered based on an ocular inspection.
- The court ruled in favor of Bulacan, ordering the Torcinos to demolish part of their house encroaching on Bulacan's property.
- The Torcinos appealed to the Court of First Instance of Leyte and filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, claiming it was not signed by Bulacan or a licensed attorney.
- Bulacan opposed the motion, asserting it was untimely and that the defenses were waived.
- The Court of First Instance denied the motion to dismiss and affirmed the municipal court's decision after a geodetic engineer confirmed the encroachment.
Issue:
- (Unlock)
Ruling:
- The Supreme Court ruled that the complaint should not be dismissed on the grounds of being signed by a non-member of the bar.
- The Court affirmed the lower court's decision, co...(Unlock)
Ratio:
- The Supreme Court's decision was based on the interpretation of Section 34, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, which allows parties in municipal courts to conduct litigation with the help of a friend or agent, without requiring a licensed attorney.
- The Court emphasized the need for accessible litigation in municipal courts, where legal representation may not always be available.
- Bulacan's verification of the complaint indicated his awareness of the situation, and the lack of a licensed att...continue reading
Case Digest (G.R. No. L-44388)
Facts:
The case involves Victoriano Bulacan as the plaintiff-appellee and Faustino Torcino and Felipa Torcino as the defendants-appellants. The events leading to the case began when Bulacan filed a complaint for forcible entry and damages with a preliminary mandatory injunction against the Torcinos in the Municipal Court of Baybay, Leyte, on August 4, 1972. The complaint was signed by Nicolas Nunes, Jr., who referred to himself as "Friend counsel for the Plaintiff," but it was verified by Bulacan himself. The verification stated that Bulacan had caused the complaint to be prepared by Nunes and had voluntarily requested his assistance in filing the case. The defendants did not initially contest the signing of the complaint.
On February 10, 1973, the municipal court ordered the parties to submit a proposed compromise agreement, failing which the court would render a judgment based on an ocular inspection conducted in December 1972. When the parties could not reach an amicable settlement, the court ruled in favor of Bulacan, ordering the Torcinos to demolish a portion of their house that encroached on Bulacan's property. The Torcinos appealed this decision to the Court of First Instance of Leyte.
On September 18, 1973, the Torcinos filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, arguing that it was not signed by Bulacan or an admitted attorney, rendering it sham and false. They filed another motion four days later, asserting that the verification did not cure the defect. Bulacan opposed the motion, claiming it was untimely and that the defenses were waived since they were not raised in the municipal court. The Court of First Instance denied the motion to dismiss, and a subsequent motion for reconsideration was also denied.
On December...