RULES ON SUMMARY PROCEDURE (RSP)

1.         If the extension for the filing of pleadings cannot be allowed, it is illogical and incongruous to admit a pleading that is already filed late. to admit a late answer is to put a premium on dilatory measures, the very mischief that the rules seek to redress. (TERAÑA vs. DESAGUN, G.R. No. 152131, April 29, 2009, Second Division, Brion, J.).

2.         The failure of one party to submit his position paper does not bar at all the MTC from issuing a judgment on the ejectment complaint. x x x In such a case, what would be extant in the record and the bases for the judgment would be the complaint, answer, and the record of the preliminary conference (TERAÑA vs. DESAGUN, G.R. No. 152131, April 29, 2009, Second Division, Brion, J.).

3.         if a sole defendant shall fail to appear in the preliminary conference, the plaintiff shall be entitled to judgment in accordance with Section 6 of the Rule, that is, the court shall render judgment as may be warranted by the facts alleged in the Complaint and limited to what is prayed for therein (Section 7 of the 1991 Revised Rules on Summary Procedure).  However, "[t]his Rule (Sec. 7) shall not apply where one of two or more defendants sued under a common cause of action, who had pleaded a common defense, shall appear at the preliminary conference." x x x The Supreme Court held that the afore-quoted provision does not apply in the case where petitioner is not a co-defendant in the same case but actually sued in a separate case for ejectment. (SORIENTE vs. THE ESTATE OF ARSENIO E. CONCEPCION, G.R. No. 160239, Nov. 25, 2009, Third Division, Peralta, J.).