G.R. No. 134222 - Don Tino Realty and Development Corp. vs. Florentino

On February 6, 1997, petitioner Don Tino Realty and Development Corporation initiated an ejectment suit against respondent Julian Florentino.
The complaint alleged that Don Tino is the owner and in peaceful possession of a parcel of land covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 32422 located in Barrio San Juan, Balagtas, Bulacan.
It was further alleged that respondent occupied a portion of the disputed land by force, strategy, and stealth and constructed his residence thereon.

Summons were duly served on February 13, 1997, directing the respondent to answer within ten (10) days as provided under the Revised Rules on Summary Procedure.
On February 24, 1997, respondent filed his answer through Roel G. Alvear, who was identified as the president of the Samahang Magkakapitbahay ng RMB, San Juan, Balagtas, Bulacan.
The answer was filed one day late and was not verified, thus failing to satisfy the requirement under Section 3(b) of the Rules.
Notably, Roel G. Alvear did not have a Special Power of Attorney, which further raised issues regarding his authority to represent the respondent.

The trial court scheduled a preliminary conference on April 13, 1997.
On March 21, 1997, petitioner moved for the rendition of judgment and for the cancellation of the preliminary conference, arguing that respondent’s answer was both defective and untimely.
The trial court granted the motion on March 26, 1997, citing the failure to comply with Section 3(b) (verification requirement) and Section 5 (timely filing) of the Revised Rules on Summary Procedure.
As a result, the trial court proceeded under Section 6 of the Rules, treating the case as fully submitted for decision without a proper answer from the respondent.

On April 8, 1997, the trial court rendered its decision ordering respondent to vacate the premises and deliver possession to Don Tino.
The court fixed a rental amount of two thousand pesos (P2,000.00) as reasonable compensation for the period from March 25, 1996, until the respondent vacated the property.
The trial court dismissed other claims of the petitioner due to lack of supporting evidence.

On April 11, 1997, respondent filed a Manifestation with a Motion to Lift the March 26, 1997, order, claiming that the late and imperfect answer was the result of honest mistake and excusable negligence due to his economic hardship.
Despite the motion being set for resolution on April 24, 1997, the respondent filed a notice of appeal on April 25, 1997, which was approved by the Municipal Trial Court on April 30, 1997.
On August 8, 1997, the Regional Trial Court, Branch 14, in Malolos, Bulacan, affirmed the trial court’s decision in toto.
The Court of Appeals later reversed the RTC decision, holding that the late answer should be admitted based on a liberal construction of the summary rules to prevent injustice to the respondent.

By acknowledging that the inferior court had “pragmatically” taken cognizance of the belated answer when setting the preliminary conference.
By incorrectly treating a motion for rendition of judgment as a prohibited pleading under Section 19-(h) of the Revised Rules on Summary Procedure.
By imposing a requirement for notice under Rule 15 of the 1997 Rules on Civil Procedure for the motion for rendition of judgment when such a requirement was not mandatory under the prevailing rules at the time of filing.

Whether or not the Revised Rules on Summary Procedure should be liberally interpreted to allow the admission of an answer that was filed one (1) day late.
Whether the failure of the respondent to verify his answer and his submission of it through an unauthorized representative should justify its exclusion.
Whether the trial court’s actions in proceeding under Section 6 after the untimely and defective answer were proper, notwithstanding the subsequent motion to lift or any claim of excusable negligence.