Rule 5 Uniform Procedure/Summary Procedure

1. Republic v. Sunvar Realty Development

Republic and NAPOCOR (NPC) co-owned several parcels of land in Makati.

Lot A: ownership 80% - Republic, 20% NPC
o Republic represented by Privatization Management office (PMO).
TRCFI leased the 4 parcels of land for 25 years, ending on December 31, 2002.
o TRCFI was granted the right to sublease any portion of the 4 parcels.
o Sunvar Realty occupied several portions of the lots by virtue of sublease agreements.
Although the agreements commenced on different dates, they were all set to
expire on Dec. 31, 2002, but subject to renewal at the option of Sunvar.
Under the sublease agreement, Sunvar agreed to return/surrender the land,
without any delay whatsoever upon termination/expiration of the contract.
The government was reorganized, TRCFI was dissolved and was assumed by Philippine Devt
Alternatives Foundation (PDAF).
April 2002 Sunvar wrote to PDAF, expressing its desire to exercise the option to renew the
sublease for another 25 years.
o It also wrote to the Office of the President, DENR and NPC for the same reason.
PDAF notified Sunvar that it would not renew the contract of lease.
The Republic also decided not to renew the lease, stating that the parties had earlier agreed to
transfer PDAFs assets to the Republic to sell in order to raise funds.
December 31, 2002 main lease contract with PDAF and sublease agreements expired.
Republic transferred the subject property to the PMO for disposition but Sunvar continued to
occupy the property.
February 2008 6 years after expiry, the Republic, thru the OSG, advised Sunvar to completely
vacate the property within 30 days. But Sunvar failed to vacate.
February 2009 Sunvar received from OSG a final notice to vacate within 15 days. Still did not.
PMO claimed that the fair rental value of the property was P10k/mo hence Sunvar owed
petitioners a total of P630M from 2003-2009 as lost income arising from Sunvars refusal to
vacate.
July 2009 petitioners filed a complaint for Unlawful Detainer with the MeTC of Makati, praying
that Sunvar be ordered to vacate and pay damages for illegal use and lost income owing to them.
Sunvar moved to dismiss the complaint (filed an MTD) and argued that the allegations in the
complaint did not constitute an action for unlawful detainer since no privity of contract existed
between them.
o In the alternative, it also argued that petitioners cause of action was more properly an
accion publiciana, which fell within the jurisdiction of the RTC, not the MeTC, considering
that petitioners supposed dispossession of the property by Sunvar had already lasted for
more than a year.
The MeTC denied the MTD and directed Sunvar to file an answer to the complaint.
Sunvar filed an Answer in the summary procedure for ejectment in the MeTC.
However, it also filed a Rule 65 Petition for Certiorari with the RTC of Makati to assail the
denial by the MeTC of the MTD.
o In answer to the Rule 65 petition, petitioners placed in issue the jurisdiction of the RTC
and reasoned that the Rules on Summary Procedure expressly prohibited the filing of a
petition for certiorari against interlocutory orders of the MeTC and prayed for the outright
dismissal of the certiorari petition (MTD).
RTC denied the MTD and ruled that extraordinary circumstances called for an exception to the
general rule on summary proceedings. (Didnt state what those were)
o Petitioners filed for MR denied.
o Hearing proceeded and parties filed their respective Memoranda.
RTC granted the Rule 65 Petition and directed the MeTC to dismiss the complaint for unlawful
detainer for lack of jurisdiction.
o Trial court held that the 1-year period for filing of an unlawful detainer case was reckoned
from expiration of the main and sublease contracts on December 31, 2002.

o Petitioners should have filed an accion publiciana with the RTC.

Rule 45 by petitioners.
Issue: WON Rule 65 petition in summary proceedings is proper
Held: NO, it was erroneous for the RTC to have taken cognizance of the Rule 65 Petition.

Under the Rules of Summary Procedure, a certiorari petition under Rule 65 against an
interlocutory order issued by the court in a summary proceeding is a prohibited pleading.

The RTC should have dismissed outright Sunvars Rule 65 Petition, considering it is a prohibited
pleading.

Sunvar cannot rely on Bayog v. Natino and Go v. CA to justify a certiorari review by the RTC
owing to extraordinary circumstances.
o

Bayog v. Natino

petitioner filed ejectment case against tenant who built house over property.

When respondent (illiterate farmer) received summons from the MCTC to file his
answer within 10 days, he was stricken with TB and only able to consult with a
lawyer after reglementary period.

Court allowed filing of the petition pro hac vice since respondent would suffer
grace injustice and irreparable injury.

Go v. CA

preliminary conference in ejectment suit was held in abeyance by the MTCC until
after case for specific performance involving same parties shall have been
decided by RTC.

Affected party appealed the suspension order to the RTC.

Adverse party moved to dismiss on ground that it concerned an interlocutory

order in a summary proceeding not subject of an appeal.

RTC denied MTD, directed MTCC to proceed with hearing.

CA affirmed RTCs decision.

Court allowed filing of petition for certiorari against interlocutory order in an

ejectment suit considering the affected party was deprived of any recourse to the
MTCCs erroneous suspension of a summary proceeding.

No circumstances similar to the situations in Bayog and Go are present to support the relaxation
of the general rule.

Sunvar failed to substantiate its claim of extraordinary circumstances that would constrain the
court to apply the exceptions.

Re: Unlawful Detainer

Petitioners correctly availed themselves of an action for unlawful detainer.

An action for unlawful detainer must be brought up within 1 year from the date of last demand and
the issue in the case must be the right to physical possession.

Unless otherwise stipulated, the action of the lessor shall commence only after a demand to pay
or to comply with the conditions of the lease and to vacate is made upon the lessee; or after a
written notice of that demand is served upon the person found on the premises, and the lessee
fails to comply therewith within 15 days in the case of land or 5 days in the case of buildings.

HERE: it was only on Feb 3, 2009 that petitioners made a final demand upon Sunvar to turn over
the property.
o

The 1-year period should be counted from the final demand made of Feb 3, 2009.

The complaint was filed on July 23, 2009, which was well within the 1-year period.

2. Uy & Bascug v. Judge Javellana

Public Attorneys Gerlie Uy and Consolacion Bascug of PAO filed an administrative case against
Judge Javellana of the MTC of La Castellana, Negros Occ. for gross ignorance of the law and
procedures, gross incompetence, neglect of duty, conduct improper and unbecoming of a judge,
grave misconduct and others.

They alleged that Judge Javellana was grossly ignorant of the Revised Rules on Summary
Procedure and cited several examples:
o

People v. Cornelio (Malicious Mischief)

Judge Javellana issued a warrant of arrest after the filing of the case despite Sec.
16 of the RRSP.

J: Issued warrants since the accused were wanted for Attempted

Homicide in another case.

People v. Celeste et al (Trespass to Dwelling)

Judge did not grant the MTD for non-compliance with the Lupon requirement
under Secs. 18 & 19(a) of the RRSP, insisting that said motion was a prohibited
pleading.

Also refused to dismiss outright the complaint even when it was patently without
basis/merit, as the affidavits of the complainant and her witnesses were all
hearsay evidence.

J: referral to Lupon not a jurisdictional requirement and the MTD on such

ground was a prohibited pleading under the RRSP

Refused to dismiss as he had to accord due process to the complainant.

People v. Lopez (Malicious Mischief)

Did not apply the RRSP, instead, conducted a preliminary examination and
preliminary investigation in accordance with the Rules on CrimPro

Set the case for arraignment and pre-trial despite confirming that complainant and
her witness had no personal knowledge of the material facts alleged in their
complaints.

J: MTD is a prohibited pleading under the RRSP and could not dismiss
outright since prosecution has not yet fully presented its evidence.

Many other allegations not pertinent to this case (bond agent, PI, Q&A)

Based on the allegations, Attys. Uy and Bascug prayed that Judge Javellana be removed from the
MTC of La Castellana.

OCA found Judge Javellana liable for:

o

gross ignorance of the law or procedure when he did not apply the RRSP in cases
appropriately covered by said Rule

gross misconduct when he got involved in business relations with the bond agent,
implemented the law inconsistently, and mentioned his accomplishments for publicity.

OCA recommended the judge be suspended for 3 months with a stern warning.

Issue: WON Judge Javellana was guilty of gross ignorance of the law

Held:

Scope of RRSP summary procedure in MeTC, MTC, MTCC, MCTC for:

o

B(5) All other criminal cases where the penalty prescribed by law for the offense charged
is imprisonment not exceeding 6 months, or a fine not exceeding P1000, or both,
irrespective of other imposable penalties, accessory or otherwise, or of the civil liability
arising therefrom; Provided, however, That in offenses involving damage to property thru
criminal negligence, this Rule shall govern where the imposable fine does not exceed
P10,000.00.

People v. Cornelio & People v. Lopez were both for malicious mischief.
o

The crime of malicious mischief is committed by any person who deliberately causes
damage to the property of another thru means not constituting arson.

Art. 328 of the RPC on Special Cases of Malicious Mischief is punishable by prision
correccional (6 months and 1 day to 12 years) in its minimum and medium periods, if the
value of the damage caused exceeds P1k.

All other cases of malicious mischief shall be governed by Art. 329 (Other mischiefs)
punishable by arresto mayor (1 months and 1 day to 6 months) in its medium and max
periods, if the value of the damage caused exceeds P1k.

Without any showing that the accused in People v. Cornelio and People v. Lopez et al
were charged with the special cases of malicious mischief particularly described in Art.
328 of the RPC, then Art. 329 should be applied.

If the amounts of the alleged damage to property in Cornelio (6k) and Lopez (3k) are
proven, the appropriate penalty for the accused would be arresto mayor in its medium and
max under Art. 329(a) which would be imprisonment for 2 months and 1 day to 6
months.

Thus, these cases should be governed by RRSP.

People v. Cornelio: The issuance of a warrant of arrest in is in violation of Sec. 16 of the RRSP.

Sec. 16. The court shall not order the arrest of the accused except for failure to appear
whenever required.

Judge Javellana never claimed that the accused failed to appear at any hearing.

His justification (wanted) was unacceptable and further indicative of his ignorance of law.

People v. Lopez preliminary investigation not required or justified.

o

RRSP does not provide for a PI prior to the filing of a criminal case under the Rule.

Commenced either by complaint/information, accompanied by affidavits of complainant

and his witnesses.

Based on complaint and affidavits, court may dismiss outright or order counter.

Arraignment and Trial

CrimPro requires that PI be conducted only if penalty is at least 4 years, 2 months and 1
day.

HERE: max penalty is only 6 months.

People v. Celeste Judge erred in denying the MTD and insisting that the motion was a
prohibited pleading, even though it was never previously referred to the Lupong Tagapamayapa
as required by Secs. 18 & 19(a).
o

Sec. 18 - Cases requiring conciliation under PD 1508, where not shown compliance,
dismissed without prejudice.

Sec. 19 (a) MTD not allowed except for lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter or
failure to comply with Sec. 18.

HERE: case was not referred to the Lupon hence MTD should have been granted.

Appreciation of evidence within his jurisdictional discretion.

OCAs recommendation re penalty affirmed. Suspended without pay for 3 months and 1 day +
stern warning.