G.R. No. 143331 . October 5, 2007.
FIVE STAR MARKETING CO., INC., represented by its President SALVADOR BOOC, petitioner, vs. JAMES L. BOOC, respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Five Star Marketing Co., Inc., a corporation formed by the heirs of Antonio Booc, is the registered owner of a property in Iligan City. Respondent James Booc, son of an incorporator, was allowed to occupy a portion of a building on the property rent-free. In 1993, the parties formalized a lease agreement for specific spaces. In 1999, the corporation’s board passed a resolution terminating all free-rental privileges and setting new rental rates, notifying all occupants, including respondent. Respondent failed to vacate or enter into a new lease, prompting petitioner to file an unlawful detainer case.
During proceedings before the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC), respondent and his counsel failed to appear at the scheduled preliminary conference. The MTCC denied their motion for postponement for non-compliance with procedural rules, specifically the lack of a written explanation for not serving the motion personally as required. Consequently, the MTCC rendered judgment based on the pleadings and facts alleged in the complaint, ruling in favor of the petitioner-corporation.

ISSUE

Whether the Regional Trial Court (RTC) correctly reversed the MTCC’s decision on the grounds of improper service of the motion for postponement and lack of a preliminary conference.

RULING

The Supreme Court reversed the RTC and reinstated the MTCC decision. The RTC erred in ruling that the MTCC’s denial of the motion to reset was a denial of due process. The MTCC’s action was procedurally sound. The 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure mandate that if a mode of service other than personal is used, a written explanation must accompany the pleading. Respondent’s motion to reset, filed by mail, lacked this mandatory explanation, rendering it a mere scrap of paper with no legal effect. The MTCC was therefore correct in proceeding with the preliminary conference in respondent’s absence.
Furthermore, the absence of a preliminary conference did not invalidate the proceedings. A preliminary conference is not an indispensable requirement for a valid judgment in an ejectment case. The MTCC validly acquired jurisdiction over the parties upon the filing of the complaint and the answer. The court was authorized under the Rules to render judgment based on the facts alleged in the complaint and the evidence presented when a defendant fails to appear at the preliminary conference without valid cause. The MTCC’s decision was based on the undisputed ownership of the petitioner and the termination of respondent’s right to occupy the premises, which constituted a sufficient basis for the ejectment order.