G.R. No. 82039 June 20, 1989
SPOUSES ANTONIO MARTINEZ AND BENEDICTA BALATBAT MARTINEZ, petitioners, vs. THE HONORABLE JUDGE EUFROCINIO S. DE LA MERCED, BIENVENIDO U. JUAN and SACRED HEART SCHOOL MALABON, INC., respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners filed an unlawful detainer case against private respondents before the Metropolitan Trial Court (MTC). After procedural delays, including a suspension due to a pending interpleader case, the MTC ordered the case to proceed under the Rules on Summary Procedure. The court, without conducting a preliminary conference as required by Section 6 of said Rules, directed the parties to submit their affidavits and position papers. Private respondents filed a motion for extension to submit their position paper, which the MTC granted conditionally upon the submission of a medical certificate. Private respondents filed their position paper within the extended period but submitted the medical certificate a few days late. Consequently, the MTC expunged their position paper from the record, rendered an ex parte decision in favor of the petitioners, and ordered the respondents to vacate the premises.
On appeal, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) nullified the MTC decision, ruling that the failure to conduct a preliminary conference was a jurisdictional error. The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC decision, holding that the preliminary conference under the Rules on Summary Procedure is mandatory and jurisdictional, and its non-observance constitutes reversible error. The appellate court also found that the MTC erred in striking out the respondents’ position paper for the late submission of the medical certificate.

ISSUE

Whether the right to a preliminary conference under the Rules on Summary Procedure can be waived by a party’s failure to object to its non-observance during the proceedings in the trial court.

RULING

The Supreme Court granted the petition, reversed the decisions of the appellate courts, and reinstated the MTC decision. The Court held that the requirement of a preliminary conference under the Rules on Summary Procedure is not jurisdictional but merely procedural. While the rule mandates such a conference to clarify issues and explore amicable settlements, non-compliance does not automatically void the proceedings. The legal logic is grounded in the principle that a party may waive procedural rights, either expressly or impliedly. In this case, private respondents actively participated in the summary proceedings by filing motions and submitting their position paper without ever raising the lack of a preliminary conference as an issue before the MTC. Their silence and participation constituted an implied waiver of that right. The Court emphasized that objections to procedural irregularities must be raised at the earliest opportunity; otherwise, they are deemed waived. Furthermore, the Court found no error in the MTC’s act of expunging the respondents’ position paper for failure to timely comply with the conditional grant of extension. However, the Court clarified that while the right can be waived, trial courts should not dispense with the preliminary conference, as it serves vital purposes in the efficient administration of justice.