G.R. No. L-44388. January 30, 1985.
VICTORIANO BULACAN, plaintiff-appellee, vs. FAUSTINO TORCINO and FELIPA TORCINO, defendants-appellants.

FACTS

Victoriano Bulacan filed a complaint for forcible entry and damages with the Municipal Court of Baybay, Leyte, against spouses Faustino and Felipa Torcino. The complaint was signed by Nicolas Nuñes, Jr., identified as “Friend counsel for the Plaintiff,” and was verified by Bulacan himself. The verification explicitly stated that Bulacan had sought Nuñes’s aid to prosecute his case. The municipal court, after an ocular inspection and a failed compromise, ruled in favor of Bulacan, finding that the Torcinos’ house encroached on his lot. The Torcinos appealed to the Court of First Instance (CFI). Only then did they file a motion to dismiss, arguing the complaint was defective for being signed by a non-lawyer. The CFI denied the motion. Subsequently, the parties entered into a stipulation of facts agreeing to a relocation survey by a geodetic engineer, whose findings would be binding. The survey confirmed the encroachment, and the CFI affirmed the municipal court’s decision. The Torcinos appealed, assigning as error the denial of their motion to dismiss and the decision on the merits.

ISSUE

Whether the municipal court should have dismissed the complaint for forcible entry because it was signed by a non-member of the bar.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s decision, ruling that the complaint should not be dismissed. The legal logic is anchored on the distinction between courts of different levels and the principle of liberal construction of procedural rules. The Court clarified that the rule requiring pleadings to be signed by an attorney applies strictly to cases filed with regional trial courts and higher courts, but not to municipal courts. Citing Cantimbuhan v. Cruz, Jr., the Court recognized that for simple litigation in municipal courts, a more educated person may appear for a litigant, especially where the party litigant himself verifies the complaint, demonstrating awareness and consent. Here, Bulacan’s verification expressly stated he asked Nuñes for aid, curing any technical defect. Procedural rules are to be construed liberally to secure just, speedy, and inexpensive disposition of cases and to avoid denial of substantial justice on technicalities. Furthermore, the Torcinos waived any objection by not raising it in their answer in the municipal court and by subsequently entering into a stipulation of facts that bound them to the survey results, which established the encroachment. Thus, the lower courts committed no error.