G.R. No. 105866 July 6, 1993
VICTORIA D. BAYUBAY, represented by her attorney-in-fact, MARIBEL MAMARIL, petitioner, vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS, Former Fourth Division and BIG MAK BURGER, INC., respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Victoria D. Bayubay filed an action for ejectment against private respondent Big Mak Burger, Inc. in the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Los Baños, Laguna, on the ground of expiration of the contract of lease. The private respondent, in its answer, argued it had an option to renew the lease “under such conditions as may be agreed upon by the parties,” raised the defense of estoppel, and alleged a counterclaim for damages and reimbursement of expenses incurred on the leased premises. The MTC heard the case under the Rule on Summary Procedure. After three pre-trial meetings and the marking of exhibits, the MTC rendered a decision holding the lease contract had expired because no extension was agreed upon. The private respondent appealed to the Regional Trial Court (RTC), arguing the MTC violated Sections 6 and 7 of the Rules on Summary Procedure by rendering judgment without ordering the parties to submit position papers and affidavits, thereby violating its right to due process. The RTC affirmed the MTC decision. The Court of Appeals reversed the RTC and ordered the remand of the case to the MTC for further proceedings.

ISSUE

Whether the Municipal Trial Court violated the mandatory provisions of the Rule on Summary Procedure, specifically Sections 6 and 7, by failing to issue an order after the preliminary conference and by not providing the parties an opportunity to submit their position papers and affidavits, thereby denying the private respondent due process.

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the petition and AFFIRMED the decision of the Court of Appeals. The Court held that the MTC failed to comply with the mandatory procedure under the Rule on Summary Procedure. Section 6 requires the court to issue an order immediately after the preliminary conference clearly and distinctly setting forth the issues and matters taken up. Section 7 provides that within ten days from receipt of that order, the parties shall submit their affidavits and position papers. The record showed the MTC did not issue such an order; a mere notation in the minutes that the pre-trial was “terminated” and that parties were to submit position papers was insufficient. Without the order, the ten-day period for submission never commenced. Furthermore, the Court agreed with the Court of Appeals that the case involved factual issues, such as the counterclaim for reimbursement of improvements and damages, which required at least the submission of affidavits. While commending the municipal judge’s zeal for speedy resolution, the Court emphasized that procedural rules must be observed to ensure due process. The remand to the MTC for further proceedings was proper to enforce the Rule on Summary Procedure.