Professional Documents
Culture Documents
As Amended by A.M. No. 02-11-09-SC. November 12, 2002 To Take Effect On November 25, 2002
As Amended by A.M. No. 02-11-09-SC. November 12, 2002 To Take Effect On November 25, 2002
By Caesar S. Europa
I.
Applicability
A. Civil Cases:
"(2) All other cases, except probate proceedings, where the total
amount of the plaintiff's claim does not exceed one hundred thousand
pesos (P100,000.00) or, two hundred thousand pesos (P200,000.00) in
Metropolitan Manila, exclusive of interest and costs."1
B. Criminal Cases:
1
As amended by A.M. No. 02-11-09-SC. November 12, 2002 to take effect on November 25,
2002
2
(5) All other criminal cases where the penalty prescribed by law
for the offense charged is imprisonment not exceeding six months, or a
fine not exceeding one thousand pesos (P1,000.00), or both irrespective of
other imposable penalties, accessory or otherwise, or of the civil liability
arising therefrom: Provided, however, that in offenses involving damage to
property through criminal negligence, this Rule shall govern where the
imposable fine does not exceed ten thousand pesos (P10,000.00).
This Rule shall not apply to a civil case where the plaintiff's cause of
action is pleaded in the same complaint with another cause of action
subject to the ordinary procedure; nor to a criminal case where the offense
charged is necessarily related to another criminal case subject to the
ordinary procedure."
Sec. 3. Pleadings. —
Sec. 4. Duty of court. — After the court determines that the case
falls under summary procedure, it may, from an examination of the
allegations therein and such evidence as may be attached thereto, dismiss
the case outright on any of the grounds apparent therefrom for the
dismissal of a civil action. If no ground for dismissal is found it shall
forthwith issue summons which shall state that the summary procedure
under this Rule shall apply. d-c
2
As amended by A.M. No. 00-11-01-SC. March 25, 2003 to take effect on April 15, 2003
3
reduce the amount of damages and attorney's fees claimed for being
excessive or otherwise unconscionable. This is without prejudice to the
applicability of Section 4, Rule 18 of the Rules of Court, if there are two or
more defendants.
Under Section 19 par (e) a motion for extension of time to file pleadings is
prohibited. Can the rules be construed liberally to allow the admission of a
late answer?
“In the case of Gachon vs. Devera, Jr., we ruled that the use of the word
"shall" in the Rule on Summary Procedure underscores their mandatory
character. "Giving the provisions a directory application would subvert the nature
of the Rule on Summary Procedure and defeat its objective of expediting the
adjudication of suits. Indeed, to admit a late answer, . . ., is to put a premium on
dilatory maneuvers-the very mischief that the Rule seeks to redress."
Considering this, the view of the Court of Appeals that such provisions
should be liberally interpreted is misplaced. The liberality in the interpretation and
application of the rules applies only in proper cases and under justifiable causes
and circumstances. While it is true that litigation is not a game of technicalities, it
is equally true that every case must be prosecuted in accordance with the
prescribed procedure to insure an orderly and speedy administration of justice.”
“In [Bayog vs. Natino 258 SCRA 378 (1996)] we ruled that there is nothing
in the said section (Section 36 of B.P. Blg. 129) which bars the MCTC from
taking cognizance of [a belatedly filed] answer. The Revised Rule on Summary
Procedure, as well as its predecessor, do not provide that an answer filed after
the reglementary period should be expunged from the records. As a matter of
fact, there is no provision for an entry of default if the defendant fails to file his
answer.
In the said case, however, the defendant raised in his answer that the
MCTC had no jurisdiction over the ejectment case as he is a holder of an
Agricultural Leasehold Contract and a Certificate of Agricultural Leasehold.
Although this did not automatically divest the court of its jurisdiction, we held that
it should receive the evidence presented for the purpose of determining whether
or not it possesses jurisdiction over the case. Moreover, his defense of lack of
jurisdiction may be raised in a motion to dismiss as an exception to the rule on
prohibited pleadings.”
The court shall not resort to the clarificatory procedure to gain time
for the rendition of the judgment.
Considering the provisions of Section 10, can the court, allow a survey of
the property subject of the case despite the agreement of the parties to
submit the case for decision without need of a survey?
“Rule 1, Section 6 of the Rules of Court provides that the said rules shall
be liberally construed in order to promote their objective of receiving a just,
speedy and inexpensive disposition of every action and proceedings. The settled
rule is that litigations should, as much as possible, be decided on their merits and
not on technicalities. Every party litigant must be accorded the complete
opportunity for the proper determination of the case, free from the unacceptable
plea of technicalities. The Court, in the exercise of equity and jurisdiction, may
disregard procedural lapses to enable the case for its merits based on the
records and the evidence of the parties.”
Clearly, the reckoning point from which the mandatory period for rendition
of judgment should be computed is the receipt of the last affidavits and position
papers of the parties, or the expiration of the period for filing the same, as
provided by the Rules, not from the issuance of the order by the judge deeming
the case submitted for resolution. The reckoning point is fixed by law, not by the
judge. A judge cannot by himself choose to prolong the period for deciding cases
beyond that authorized by the law.”
III.
Criminal Cases
the accused may file his counter-affidavits and serve the same on the
prosecution within three (3) days from such service.
Sec. 16. Arrest of accused. — The court shall not order the arrest
of the accused except for failure to appear whenever required. Release of
the person arrested shall either be on bail or on recognizance by a
responsible citizen acceptable to the court.
IV.
COMMON PROVISIONS
RA 7160
(b) Where one party is a public officer or employee, and the dispute
relates to the performance of his official functions;
(e) Where the dispute involves real properties located in different cities
or municipalities unless the parties thereto agree to submit their
differences to amicable settlement by an appropriate lupon;
(g) Such other classes of disputes which the President may determine in
the interest of Justice or upon the recommendation of the Secretary
of Justice.
The court in which non-criminal cases not falling within the authority of the
lupon under this Code are filed may, at any time before trial motu propio refer the
case to the lupon concerned for amicable settlement.
(f) Memoranda;
(j) Reply;
(l) Interventions.
A motion for extension of time to file pleadings, affidavits or any other paper is
one of the prohibited pleadings and motions under the Revised Rule on Summary
Procedure . Respondent judge should not have entertained the filing of such motion,
considering that the case involved was summary in nature. After the failure of the
10
defendants to answer the complaint, respondent should have rendered judgment as may
be warranted by the facts alleged in the complaint.
Furthermore, the filing of a position paper is not required before the court can
render judgment on failure of defendant to file an answer. The Revised Rule on
Summary Procedure authorizes a judge to render a decision on his own initiative or
upon motion of the plaintiff.
Moreover, a preliminary conference should be held not later than thirty (30) days
after the last answer is filed. 9 In setting the Preliminary Conference on December 20,
1995, from November 8, 1995, respondent set the conference beyond the period
provided by law.
It is also a basic rule that a case which is summary in nature should be decided
within thirty (30) days from the submission of the last affidavit and position paper. 10
However, respondent judge rendered decision on April 8, 1996, or more than one
hundred (100) days from the time the case was deemed submitted for decision. Such
failure to decide a case within the required period is not excusable and constitutes gross
inefficiency.
Leopoldo Sy vs. CA
Aug 2, 1991
Facts:
“This rule, however, applies only where the judgment sought to be reconsidered
is one rendered on the merits. As held by the Court in an earlier case involving Sec. 15
(c) of the Rules on Summary Procedure, later Sec. 19 (c) of the Revised Rules on
Summary Procedure effective November 15, 1991: "The motion prohibited by this
Section is that which seeks reconsideration of the judgment rendered by the court
after trial on the merits of the case." Here, the order of dismissal issued by
respondent judge due to failure of a party to appear during the preliminary
conference is obviously not a judgment on the merits after trial of the case.
Hence, a motion for the reconsideration of such order is not the prohibited
pleading contemplated under Section 19 (c) of the present Rule on Summary
Procedure. Thus, respondent judge committed no grave abuse of discretion, nor is she
guilty of ignorance of the law, in giving due course to the motion for reconsideration
subject of the present complaint.”
Bayview Hotel, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. 119337. June 17, 1997
“parties are not prohibited from filing an answer with affirmative defenses in cases falling
under summary procedure.