RELEVANT PRONOUNCEMENTS OF THE SUPREME COURT ON THE RULES ON SUMMARY PROCEDURE (RSP)

                  ABSENCE OF DEFENDANT ON THE PRE-TRIAL: Under Section 7 of the 1991 Revised Rules on Summary Procedure, 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. 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." xxxxxx The Court holds that the italized provision above 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.  Therefore, petitioner’s failure to appear in the preliminary conference entitled respondent to the rendition of judgment by the trial court on the ejectment case filed against petitioner, in accordance with Section 7 of the 1991 Revised Rules on Summary Procedure (SORIENTE vs. THE ESTATE OF ARSENIO E. CONCEPCION, G.R. No. 160239, November 25, 2009, Third Division, Peralta, J.). 

                   MOTION FOR EXTENSION NOT ALLOWED: By its express terms, the purpose of the RSP is to "achieve an expeditious and inexpensive determination" of the cases they cover, among them, forcible entry and unlawful detainer cases. To achieve this objective, the RSP expressly prohibit certain motions and pleadings that could cause delay, among them, a motion for extension of time to file pleadings, affidavits or any other paper. If the extension for the filing of these submissions cannot be allowed, we believe it illogical and incongruous to admit a pleading that is already filed late.  Effectively, we would then allow indirectly what we prohibit to be done directly. It is for this reason that in Don Tino Realty Development Corporation v. Florentino,(G.R. No. 134222, September 10, 1999, 314 SCRA 197) albeit on the issue of late filing of an answer in a summary proceeding, the Supreme Court stated that "[t]o 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.).

                   A POSITION PAPER IS NOT INDISPENSABLE FOR THE COURT TO RENDER A JUDGMENT: 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. A position paper is not indispensable to the court’s authority to render judgment. xxxx 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.).

JURISDICTION BY ESTOPPEL

                The operation of estoppel on the question of jurisdiction seemingly depends on whether the lower court actually had jurisdiction or not.   If it had no jurisdiction, but the case was tried and decided upon the theory that it had jurisdiction, the parties are not barred, on appeal, from assailing such jurisdiction, for the same "must exist as a matter of law, and may not be conferred by the consent of the parties or by estoppel."   However, if the lower court had jurisdiction, and the case was heard and decided upon a given theory, such, for instance, as that the court had no jurisdiction, the party who induced it to adopt such theory will not be permitted, on appeal, to assume an inconsistent position – that the lower court had jurisdiction” (Lozon v. NLRC 310 Phil. 1 1995 cited in ATTY. RESTITUTO G. CUDIAMAT, et al. vs. BATANGAS SAVINGS, et al., G.R. No. 182403, March 9, 2010, First Division, Carpio Morales, J.).

JURISDICTION OVER THE PARTIES IN CIVIL CASES

  

           JURISDICTION OVER THE PARTIES 

           Courts acquire jurisdiction over the plaintiffs upon the filing of the complaint. On the other hand, jurisdiction over the defendants in a civil case is acquired either through the service of summons upon them or through their voluntary appearance in court and their submission to its authority (Orion Security Corporation v. Kalfam Enterprises, Inc., G.R. No. 163287, 27 April 2007, 522 SCRA 617, citing Casimina v. Legaspi, G.R. No. 147530, 29 June 2005, 462 SCRA 171, 177). The service of summons is a vital and indispensable ingredient of due process (Spouses Mason v. Court of Appeals, 459 Phil. 689, 699 (2003), citing National Power Corporation v. NLRC, 339 Phil. 89, 107 (1997).  As a rule, if defendants have not been validly summoned, the court acquires no jurisdiction over their person, and a judgment rendered against them is null and void (Bank of the Philippine Islands v. Spouses Evangelista, 441 Phil. 445, 453 (2002).