G.R. No. L-1121; July 29, 1947
CONCHITA VDA. DE SALUDES, petitioner-appellant, vs. GREGORIO PAJARILLO and VICENTE BAUTISTA, Judge of Municipal Court of Manila, respondents-appellees.

FACTS

Petitioner Conchita Vda. de Saludes filed an action in the Court of First Instance of Manila on November 12, 1945, to annul a deed of sale of a house and lot she executed in favor of respondent Gregorio Pajarillo. While that suit was pending, Pajarillo filed an ejectment action against Saludes in the Municipal Court of Manila to compel her to vacate the same property. Saludes filed a motion to dismiss the ejectment case on the grounds of a pending action between the same parties for the same cause and lack of jurisdiction. The municipal court, presided by Judge Vicente Bautista, heard the motion but, without resolving it and without conducting a trial on the merits, rendered a judgment ordering Saludes to vacate the premises, pay back rentals, and cover costs. Saludes filed a motion for reconsideration and new trial, arguing the judgment was a nullity due to the lack of a trial. While this motion was pending, Judge Bautista, upon Pajarillo’s motion and without notice to Saludes, issued a writ of execution. Saludes then filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of First Instance to annul the municipal court’s judgment. The Court of First Instance denied the petition, holding that the proper remedy was appeal. Saludes appealed to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

Whether the municipal court’s judgment in the ejectment case, rendered without first resolving the pending motion to dismiss and without conducting a proper trial on the merits, is null and void.

RULING

Yes, the judgment is null and void. The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Court of First Instance and set aside the municipal court’s judgment.
The Court held that although a municipal court is a court of limited jurisdiction, its procedure must be orderly and cannot disregard rules designed to safeguard justice. A defendant has the right to raise preliminary questions via a motion to dismiss. The court is obligated to rule on such a motion. If the motion is denied, the defendant has the right to file an answer to plead all defenses and counterclaims. Only after the defendant has answered may the court proceed to a trial on the merits, where both parties have the full opportunity to present their evidence and be heard. The municipal court’s act of ignoring the pending motion to dismiss and rendering judgment based merely on questions posed to the parties during the hearing on that motion—without the parties being aware that a formal trial was being conducted—constitutes an irregular, arbitrary, and void procedure. Such a process is conducive to confusion and injustice, as statements made under those circumstances may lack accuracy and completeness.
The Court also rejected the contention that certiorari was improper because an appeal was available. It ruled that an appeal was not an adequate remedy under the circumstances due to the issuance of a writ of execution by the municipal court.