G.R. No. 182779 ; August 23, 2010
VICTORINA (VICTORIA) ALICE LIM LAZARO, Petitioner, vs. BREWMASTER INTERNATIONAL, INC., Respondent.

FACTS

Respondent Brewmaster International, Inc. filed a Complaint for a Sum of Money against spouses Prescillo Lazaro and petitioner Victorina Lazaro before the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Makati. The complaint alleged that during the period from February to May 2002, the defendants obtained on credit beer and other products totaling Php 138,502.92, as evidenced by attached sales invoices, and failed to pay despite repeated demands. The defendants, in their separate answers, denied the transaction, pointing out that the attached sales invoices indicated the goods were sold to “TOTAL” and received by a certain Daniel Limuco, not by them personally.
During the scheduled preliminary conference, both defendants failed to appear. The MeTC thus declared the case submitted for decision and subsequently dismissed the complaint. It ruled that the plaintiff failed to meet the burden of proof, as the sales invoices did not indicate that the goods were received by the defendants. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) affirmed this dismissal on appeal, refusing to consider additional evidence submitted by the respondent for the first time on appeal. The Court of Appeals (CA), however, reversed the lower courts.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the dismissal and awarding the sum of money based solely on the allegations in the complaint, given the defendants’ failure to appear at the preliminary conference.

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the petition and AFFIRMED the CA Decision. The ruling is anchored on the proper application of the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure. The MeTC and the RTC committed reversible error by delving into the evidentiary value of the sales invoices attached to the complaint. Under Section 7 of the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure, the failure of both defendants to appear at the preliminary conference entitled the plaintiff to a judgment in accordance with Section 6 of the same Rule. Section 6 provides that the court shall render judgment “as may be warranted by the facts alleged in the complaint.”
The legal logic is procedural and specific. At the stage of preliminary conference under summary procedure, the court’s task is not to weigh evidence but to ascertain if the ultimate facts alleged in the complaint—if deemed admitted due to the defendants’ non-appearance—warrant the relief prayed for. The complaint sufficiently alleged ultimate facts: that the defendants obtained goods on credit, the amount, and their failure to pay. The sales invoices were merely evidentiary attachments; their detailed examination for the purpose of determining liability was premature. The CA correctly held that by requiring the plaintiff to prove its case through those invoices at that juncture, the MeTC contravened the summary rule’s purpose to expedite proceedings and treat non-appearance as an admission of the pleaded ultimate facts. Therefore, judgment based on the allegations was proper.