G.R. No. 96432 October 21, 1992
LORENZO P. LESACA, petitioner, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS and ALFREDO RAVELO, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Lorenzo P. Lesaca filed a complaint for ejectment against private respondent Alfredo Ravelo in the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Manila on February 23, 1990, on grounds of expiration of the month-to-month lease and non-payment of rentals. Ravelo filed an answer. During the first preliminary conference on April 19, 1990, both parties were present, but it was reset to May 3, 1990, to explore an amicable settlement. On May 3, 1990, only the petitioner appeared. Upon motion of petitioner’s counsel, the MeTC declared Ravelo “as in default” for failure to appear and considered the case submitted for decision based on the complaint’s allegations. The MeTC rendered a decision on May 23, 1990, ordering Ravelo to vacate the premises. Ravelo appealed to the Regional Trial Court (RTC), which affirmed the MeTC decision. Ravelo then filed a petition in the Court of Appeals, which set aside the decisions of the MeTC and RTC and remanded the case to the MeTC for further proceedings and reception of evidence under the Rule on Summary Procedure.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that: (1) Section 5 of the Rule on Summary Procedure applies only when the defendant fails to answer; (2) the trial court has no discretion but to proceed under Sections 6 and 7 of the Rule if a party fails to attend the preliminary conference; and (3) a declaration “as in default” is prohibited by the Rule on Summary Procedure.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals. It held that since Ravelo filed an answer to the complaint, the trial court could not declare him in default despite his absence at the preliminary conference, as a motion to declare a defendant in default is a prohibited pleading under Section 15(h) of the Rule on Summary Procedure. The Court emphasized that when a defendant fails to appear at the preliminary conference but has filed an answer, the proper procedure under Section 6 is for the court to issue a preliminary conference order defining the issues, and then under Section 7, the parties shall submit their affidavits and evidence. Only when the defendant fails to answer may the court render judgment based on the complaint under Section 5. The policy of the law favors trying cases on their merits, and judgments by default are disfavored, especially after an answer has been filed. The case was remanded to the MeTC for further proceedings and reception of evidence in accordance with the Rule on Summary Procedure.