RULE 6: Kinds of Pleadings

VICTORINA (VICTORIA) ALICE LIM LAZARO, v BREWMASTER INTERNATIONAL, INC.,

J. Carpio, GR 182779, August 23, 2010
DOCTRINE:
1. A Complaint must make a plain, concise, and direct statement of the ultimate facts on which the
plaintiff relies for his claim.
2. Non-appearance in the Preliminary Conference on cases filed for Summary Procedure places the
case under Rule 6 of the Revised Rules of Summary Procedure: it will be decided according to
the material allegations of the complaint.
FACTS:
Nature: Petition for review on Certiorari of CA decision awarding amount sought by respondents
because their complaints, in the words of Section 6 of the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure, the
judgment warranted by the facts alleged in the complaint.
Original Action (2005): Collection case filed by Brewmaster International (Asia Brewery distributor)
against Prescillo Lazaro and Victoria Lazaro in the MeTC of Makati for the collection of Php 180,502.00
worth of goods unpaid by the Lazaros.
Brewmaster attached Sales Invoice in their complaint as proof. Said Sales Invoice states Total as
purchaser of the goods and Daniel Limuco (spouses employee) as the one who accepted the goods.
Prescillo filed an answer with counterclaim stating that he and petitioner had lived separately since
January 2002 and he never authorized to purchase anything from respondent.
Victoria filed her answer with a counterclaim denying she transacted with Brewmaster and that the
documents show that it was not she but Total who purchased goods from the respondent.
During the scheduled preliminary conference, petitioner and co-defendant did not appear. MeTC
submitted the case for decision consequently. MeTC dismissed the case stating that Brewmaster were
not able to establish the required burden of proof to establish its claim by preponderance of evidence.
They noted that Brewmaster was not able to prove that any of the spouse received the goods.
RTC: Elevasted to RTC through notice of appeal, Brewmaster attached its memorandum as additional
evidence showing it transacted with petitioner and husband who owned a Total Gas Station where
Daniel Limuco was their employee. RTC agreed with MeTC and affirmed the decision in toto.
Court of Appeals: Via petition for review, CA reversed the decision and granted the petitioners prayers
applying Section 7 and Section 6 of the Revised Rules on Summary Procedure stating that judgment
should have been rendered as may be warranted by the facts alleged in the complaint considering
that both defendants failed to appear during the preliminary conference.
MR denied.
ISSUE:
WoN the Court of Appeals erred in applying the provisions of the Revised Rules of Summary
Procedure
HELD:
No. The Court of Appeals correctly applied the Rules of Summary Procedure in this case. Since this is a collection
case under the MeTC, it should be under Summary Procedure hence the CA was correct in using the ff rules:
Sec. 7. Preliminary conference; appearance of parties. Not later than thirty (30) days after the last
answer is filed, a preliminary conference shall be held. The rules on pre-trial in ordinary cases shall be
applicable to the preliminary conference unless inconsistent with the provisions of this Rule.chan robles
virtual law library
The failure of the plaintiff to appear in the preliminary conference shall be a cause for the dismissal of his
complaint. The defendant who appears in the absence of the plaintiff shall be entitled to
judgment on his counterclaim in accordance with Section 6 hereof. All cross-claims shall be
dismissed.

If a sole defendant shall fail to appear, the plaintiff shall be entitled to judgment in accordance with Section
6 hereof. This Rule 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.
Sec. 6. Effect of failure to answer. Should the defendant fail to answer the complaint within the period
above provided, the court, motu proprio, or on motion of the plaintiff, shall render judgment as may be
warranted by the facts alleged in the complaint and limited to what is prayed for therein:
Provided, however, that the court may in its discretion reduce the amount of damages and attorney's fees
claimed for being excessive or otherwise unconscionable. This is without prejudice to the applicability of
Section 4, Rule 15 of the Rules of Court, if there are two or more defendants.
Thus, the non-appearance of the Spouses Lazaro in the preliminary conference meant that the MeTC should have
decided on the case based on the facts alleged in the complaint. The Sales Invoice where the MeTC founded their
ruling upon is irrelevant in the case since it is evidenciary and should not have been recognized by the MeTC. The
only material facts are those alleged in the case and the MeTC should have decided on the case based on it.
**Petitioner is saying that the complaint did not state a cause of action. SC says it did. Petitioner says the invoice
proves that she was not the purchaser. SC says thats evidenciary, and the Court does not go there if the case is
supposed to be only judged according to the material allegations of the complaint.
On requirements for a complaint:
The basic requirement under the rules of procedure is that a complaint must make a plain, concise,
and direct statement of the ultimate facts on which the plaintiff relies for his claim. Ultimate
facts mean the important and substantial facts which either directly form the basis of the plaintiffs
primary right and duty or directly make up the wrongful acts or omissions of the defendant. They refer to
the principal, determinative, constitutive facts upon the existence of which the cause of action rests. The
term does not refer to details of probative matter or particulars of evidence which establish the material
elements.
The test of sufficiency of the facts alleged in a complaint to constitute a cause of action is
whether, admitting the facts alleged, the court could render a valid judgment upon the same in
accordance with the prayer of the petition or complaint. To determine whether the complaint states
a cause of action, all documents attached thereto may, in fact, be considered, particularly when referred to
in the complaint. We emphasize, however, that the inquiry is into the sufficiency, not the veracity of the
material allegations in the complaint. Thus, consideration of the annexed documents should only be taken
in the context of ascertaining the sufficiency of the allegations in the complaint.