SC Clarifies: No Extension to File Answer in Ejectment Suits

-

 


SC Clarifies: No Extension to File Answer in Ejectment Suits


In Victoria G. Gachon and Alex Guevara vs. Hon. Norberto C. Devera, Jr., G.R. No. 116695, the Supreme Court clarified the application of the Rules on Summary Procedure, specifically whether the period for filing pleadings should be applied strictly or liberally.


The Case


The petitioners, Gachon and Guevara, were required to file an answer within ten days of receiving summons in a forcible entry case. They missed the deadline and filed a motion for an extension, which was rejected because such motions are prohibited under the Rule on Summary Procedure. The petitioners then sought to admit their late answer, but this was also denied. After the Municipal Trial Court ruled against them, they appealed to the Regional Trial Court, and then to the Supreme Court.


The Issue


The key issue was whether the court should apply the ten-day period for filing pleadings strictly, as outlined in the Rule on Summary Procedure, or whether it could be interpreted more liberally to allow for the late filing.


The Supreme Court’s Ruling


The Supreme Court upheld the strict application of the ten-day period for filing pleadings. The Court emphasized that the Rule on Summary Procedure is designed to ensure speedy and inexpensive resolution of cases, particularly those involving forcible entry and unlawful detainer. The use of the word "shall" in the rule makes the deadline mandatory, and no extensions are allowed.

Reason Behind the Ruling


The Court clarified that allowing late pleadings would defeat the purpose of the Rule, which is to prevent delays in resolving property disputes. Forcible entry cases require quick resolution to restore lawful possession and avoid social disruption. Allowing delays, even due to oversight or negligence, would undermine the objective of swift justice. The Court also noted that procedural negligence cannot be excused, as it would encourage dilatory tactics.



Read: VICTORIA G. GACHON et al. vs. NORBERTO C. DEVERA, JR., PRESIDING JUDGE, BRANCH XXIV, RTC, ILOILO CITY et al., G.R. No. 116695, June 20, 1997


✍️ Atty. Phil Juris 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

𝐄𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐨𝐦𝐢𝐜 𝐑𝐞𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐲 𝐓𝐞𝐬𝐭.

-
Image
  𝐄𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐨𝐦𝐢𝐜 𝐑𝐞𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐲 𝐓𝐞𝐬𝐭. [G.R. No. 189255 June 17, 2015]  "Aside from the control test, the Supreme Court has also used the economic reality test in determining whether an employer-employee relationship exists between the parties."  "Under this test, the economic realities prevailing within the activity or between the parties are examined, taking into consideration the [totality of circumstances] surrounding the true nature of the relationship between the parties." In Sevilla v. Court of Appeals, we observed the need to consider the existing economic conditions prevailing between the parties, in addition to the standard of right-of-control [...] to give a clearer picture in determining the existence of an employer-employee relationship based on an analysis of the totality of economic circumstances of the worker.  Thus, the determination of the relationship between employer and employee depends upon the circumstances of the whole economic activi...
Read more

SC applied the "economic dependency test" and ruled a Lazada delivery rider as a regular employee.

-
Image
  ANTECEDENTS   In February 2016, Chrisden Cabrera Ditiangkin, Hendrix Masamayor Molines,5 Harvey Mosquito Juanio, Joselito Castro Verde, and Brian Anthony Cubacub Nabong (collectively, riders) were hired as riders by Lazada E-Services Philippines, Inc. (Lazada). They were primarily tasked to pick up items from sellers and deliver them to Lazada's warehouse. Each of them signed an Independent Contractor Agreement (Contract) which states that they will be paid P1,200.00 per day as service fee. Respondents maintain that the Contract they signed with petitioners explicitly states that there is no employer-employee relationship between them. SC RULING   When the status of the employment is in dispute, the employer bears the burden to prove that the person whose service it pays for is an independent contractor rather than a regular employee with or without fixed terms. SPONSORED   Bar Q&A (2024 Ed.) Law Questions Criminal Commercial Civil Political Labor Taxation Ethi...
Read more

Q. No. 2 | Political Law | Suggested Answer | Bar 2023

-
Image
  Q. No. 2 | Political Law | Suggested Answer | Bar 2023 Q. No. 2 | Political Law “Sulu Second District Representative Alfonso died during the second year of his term. House Speaker Rodil then designated Sulu First District Representative Midas as the legislative caretaker for the remaining period of the term of Alfonso. Upon the prodding of majority of the constituents of the Sulu Second District who are invoking their right to representation, the members of the party of Alfonso filed a petition before the Supreme Court for the issuance of a writ of mandamus to compel Rodil to call for a special election in their district.   Will the petition prosper? Explain[.]” Suggested Answer: Republic Act No. 6645, December 28, 1987 , AN ACT PRESCRIBING THE MANNER OF FILING A VACANCY IN THE CONGRESS OF THE PHILIPPINES Section 1.  In case a vacancy arises in the Senate at least eighteen (18) months or in the House of Representatives at least (1) year before the next regular election ...
Read more