Case Digest (G.R. No. 96432)
Facts:
Lorenzo P. Lesaca v. Hon. Court of Appeals and Alfredo Ravelo, G.R. No. 96432, October 21, 1992, First Division of the Supreme Court, Grino‑Aquino, J., writing for the Court.
The petitioner, Lorenzo P. Lesaca (plaintiff in the trial courts), filed on February 23, 1990 a complaint for ejectment in the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Manila against Alfredo Ravelo (defendant/respondent), seeking to oust him from commercial premises at 671 Sales Street, Sta. Cruz, Manila on grounds of expiration of a month‑to‑month lease and nonpayment of rentals. Ravelo answered the complaint.
A preliminary conference was initially held on April 19, 1990 and was reset at the parties' request to May 3, 1990 to allow settlement talks. At the May 3, 1990 conference only Lesaca (through counsel) appeared; Ravelo and his counsel failed to attend. The MeTC treated the termination of the conference as grounds to declare the defendant "in default" for nonappearance and considered the case submitted for decision. On May 23, 1990 the MeTC rendered judgment ordering Ravelo to vacate the premises.
Ravelo appealed to the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch III, Manila. After submission of memoranda the RTC affirmed the MeTC decision in toto. Ravelo then sought relief in the Court of Appeals (CA) by petition for annulment of the MeTC and RTC decisions and for remand to the MeTC for reception of evidence under the Rule on Summary Procedure. On November 29, 1990 the CA set aside the MeTC and RTC decisions and remanded the case to the MeTC for further proceedings and reception of evidence in accordance with the Rule on Summary Procedure.
Lesaca sought review by certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, contending the CA erred in its interpretation and application of the Rule on Summary Procedure (particularly S...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- May a trial court enter judgment under Section 5 of the Rule on Summary Procedure where the defendant has filed an answer but failed to appear at the preliminary conference?
- When parties fail to reach an amicable settlement at the preliminary conference, must the trial court issue a preliminary conference order defining the issues and then require the parties to submit affidavits under Sections 6 and 7 of the Rule on Summary Procedure?
- Is a motion to declare a defendant "in default" permitted under the Rule on Summary Proced...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)