G.R. No. 154462 ; January 19, 2011
SPOUSES RUBEN and MYRNA LEYNES, Petitioners, vs. FORMER TENTH DIVISION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 21, BANSALAN, DAVAO DEL SUR, MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 1, BANSALAN, DAVAO DEL SUR, and SPOUSES GUALBERTO & RENE CABAHUG-SUPERALES, Respondents.

FACTS

This case originated from a Complaint for forcible entry, damages, and attorney’s fees filed by respondents spouses Superales against petitioners spouses Leynes before the Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC). The complaint alleged that the spouses Superales are the lawful owners of a titled residential lot. Sometime in February 2000, the spouses Leynes, through force, stealth, and strategy, encroached upon and occupied a 76-square-meter portion of the lot, constructed a comfort room, and continued occupation despite protests and a failed barangay amicable settlement. A relocation survey confirmed the encroachment.
Summons and the complaint were served on the spouses Leynes on May 10, 2000, giving them ten days to file an answer under the Rules on Summary Procedure. The 10th day fell on a Saturday, May 20, 2000. The spouses Leynes filed their Answer with Counterclaim on Monday, May 22, 2000, and a Motion to Admit Belatedly Filed Answer on May 23, 2000. They explained they could not file on Saturday because they had to serve a copy on the opposing counsel in Davao City, an hour away by bus, and were unsure if that office was open on Saturdays.
The spouses Superales opposed the motion, contending the answer was filed out of time, the motion was a prohibited motion for extension in summary proceedings, and it was a pro forma motion for lack of a hearing notice. They filed an Ex Parte Motion for Judgment. On May 29, 2000, the MCTC rendered Judgment denying the motion to admit the answer. Applying Section 7, Rule 70 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, the court granted the ex parte motion and ruled in favor of the spouses Superales, ordering the spouses Leynes to vacate, pay rentals, and reimburse survey costs and attorney’s fees.
The spouses Leynes appealed to the Regional Trial Court (RTC), which affirmed the MCTC Judgment in a Decision dated July 9, 2001. The RTC ruled the MCTC correctly denied the belated answer as the reglementary period is non-extendible in summary proceedings. The spouses Leynes then filed a Petition for Certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA, in a Resolution dated December 20, 2001, dismissed the petition, finding no grave abuse of discretion by the RTC. The CA held that the RTC’s decision was immediately executory under Section 21, Rule 70, and the proper remedy was an appeal via a petition for review. The CA denied the motion for reconsideration in a Resolution dated May 7, 2002.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the Petition for Certiorari and in ruling that the proper remedy from the RTC Decision in an ejectment case was a petition for review, not a petition for certiorari.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court granted the petition, annulled and set aside the assailed CA Resolutions and the RTC Decision, and remanded the case to the MCTC.
The Court held that the CA committed grave abuse of discretion. The RTC Decision affirming the MCTC Judgment was a final order that disposed of the case on the merits. Therefore, the proper remedy was an appeal to the CA via a petition for review under Rule 42, not a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65. However, the CA erred in dismissing the petition outright on this procedural ground. Following the liberal spirit of the Rules and the interest of justice, the CA should have treated the petition for certiorari as a petition for review, as the issues raised were substantive and pertained to the lower courts’ alleged errors in denying the admission of the answer.
On the merits, the Supreme Court found that the MCTC gravely abused its discretion in refusing to admit the belated answer. The last day to file fell on a Saturday. While the MCTC was open, the spouses Leynes presented a plausible reason for the delay: the need to serve a copy on counsel in another city. The one-day delay was minimal. Strict procedural rules should be relaxed to serve substantial justice, especially in ejectment cases where the issue of possession is paramount. The denial of the answer deprived the spouses Leynes of their day in court and resulted in a judgment based solely on the allegations of the complaint, which was a denial of due process. Consequently, the MCTC Judgment and the affirming RTC Decision were annulled. The case was remanded to the MCTC with instructions to admit the Answer with Counterclaim and conduct further proceedings.