G.R. No. 85923 . February 26, 1992.
CYNTHIA S. SANTIAGO and EDISTIO FE. SORIANO, petitioners, vs. HON. PRESIDING JUDGE TEOFILO GUADIZ, JR. of Regional Trial Court, Makati, Branch 147, METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT OF MAKATI, BRANCH 64, DEPUTY SHERIFF PIOQUINTO VILLAPANA of Regional Trial Court, Makati and ALYSSIA INTERNATIONAL TRADE CORP., respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Cynthia Santiago leased office space from respondent Alyssia International Trade Corporation for one year starting March 15, 1987. Due to alleged non-payment of rentals, the lessor filed an ejectment complaint on January 22, 1988, under the Rule on Summary Procedure, and obtained a writ of preliminary attachment. Petitioners received summons on January 24, 1988. Instead of filing an answer within the 10-day period, they filed a motion for a 10-day extension, a pleading prohibited under the Rule. The Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC), noting the failure to file a timely answer, rendered a decision on February 8, 1988, based solely on the complaint’s allegations, ordering petitioners to vacate and pay accrued rentals and attorney’s fees.
Petitioners filed their answer only on February 11, 1988, after the decision was rendered. They appealed to the Regional Trial Court (RTC), which affirmed the MeTC but increased the attorney’s fees. Petitioners then elevated the case to the Supreme Court via certiorari, arguing denial of due process, improper inclusion of petitioner Soriano as a party, and irregularities in the attachment and withdrawal of a cash deposit.

ISSUE

Whether the MeTC committed grave abuse of discretion in rendering judgment without awaiting petitioners’ answer, thereby violating their right to due process.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled that there was no denial of due process and no grave abuse of discretion. The Rule on Summary Procedure mandates that a defendant must file an answer within 10 days from service of summons. Under Section 5 of the Rule, if the defendant fails to file a timely answer, the court may motu proprio render judgment based on the facts alleged in the complaint. Petitioners received summons on January 24, 1988. Their filing of a motion for extension, a prohibited pleading, did not toll the reglementary period. Their answer filed on February 11, 1988, was eight days late. Consequently, the MeTC acted correctly in deciding the case based on the complaint. Due process was not violated, as the right to be heard presupposes compliance with procedural rules; petitioners forfeited this right by their own delay. The Court modified the monetary awards, adjusting the computation of unpaid rentals and interest, and lifted the garnishment order as the previously attached properties were deemed sufficient to satisfy the judgment.