Updates on the

Revised Rules on
Summary Procedure

Republic and NPC vs.

Sunvar Realty, G.R. No.
194880
A Petition for Certiorari
brought before the RTC
questioning the MTCs
dismissal of the partys
motion to dismiss the
case for Unlawful
Detainer on the ground
that the case should be
Accion Publiciana is
prohibited under the RSP

Exception to the General

Rule: Case of Bayog vs.
Natino
Bayog filed an ejectment
case vs. Magdato, an
agricultural tenant. The
latters Answer was filed
3 days late & the MCTC
ordered his ejectment.
He filed a petition for
Relief with the RTC but
said court dismissed it.
The SC allowed the
petition otherwise
Magdato would suffer
grave injustice and
irreparable injury

Exception to the General

Rule: Case of Go v. Court
of Appeals
The preliminary
conference in the
subject ejectment suit
was held in abeyance by
the Municipal Trial Court
in Cities (MTCC) of Iloilo
City until after the case
for specific performance
involving the same
parties shall have been
finally decided by the
RTC. Thus, to avoid the
procedural void caused
by the suspension, a
Petition for Certiorari

Edillo vs. Dulpina, G.R.

No. 188360 January 21,
2010
A motion for
reconsideration of
MTCC/MTC/MCTCs
decision in an ejectment
case is a prohibited
pleading. Thus, the filing
of said motion will not
stop the running of the
period to appeal.

Mansanilla vs. Lindayag,

AM. No. MTJ-09-1743,
August 3, 2010
Section 10 of the RSP
directs that within 30
days after the receipt of
the last affidavits and
position papers, or the
expiration of the period
for filing the same, the
trial court should render
judgment on the case.
The judges statement
about records getting
misplaced or misfiled
does not justify his
failure to render the
decision within the given

Chu vs. Capellan

A.M. No. MTJ-11-1779, July
16, 2012
Sec. 7 of RSP provides
that the preliminary
conference should be
held not later than thirty
(30) days after the last
answer is filed. The case
was filed on March 22,
2007 & the Answer was
filed March 30, 2007 but
the court set the
preliminary conference
only on June 24, 2008.

Ong vs. CA et.al., G.R.

No. 144581, July 5,
2002
The failure in the
Answer to raise
the lack of a
Certificate of
Non-forum
Shopping will not
result in a waiver
on the part of
Defendant to
assert such
defect at a later
time unlike in
ordinary regular
cases

What governs is
Sec. 4 of the
1991 Revised
Rules on
Summary
Procedure where
the trial court is
at liberty to take
notice of the
grounds for the
dismissal of a
civil action that
are apparent

Lugares et.al. vs. Torres,

A.M. No.
MTJ-081719,
Basic is the rule that after
the failure of the defendant
to answer the complaint, the
court shall render judgment
as may be established by
the facts alleged in the
complaint. The RSP
authorizes a judge to render
a decision on his own
initiative or upon motion of
the plaintiff. In this case, the
judge deviated from the
procedure when she
admitted defendants'
answer even when she had
previously denied its

Sarmiento et.al., vs.

Lindayag, A.M. No. MTJ09-1743 August 3, 2010
Section 10 of the RSP directs
that within 30 days after the
receipt of the last affidavits
and position papers, or the
expiration of the period for
filing the same, the trial
court should render
judgment on the case. The
failure to decide even a
single case within the
required period constitutes
gross inefficiency

Diaz vs. Gestopa, A.M.

No. MTJ-11-1786 June
22, 2011
During the
preliminary
conference, the
Judge referred
the case to the
Lupon for
conciliation
relying that such
referral to the
barangay is
justified by
Section 408 (g) of
the Local
Government
Code.

The referral of
said subject civil
case to the lupon
is saliently an
unsound exercise
of discretion,
considering that
the matter falls
under the Rule on
Summary
Procedure

Aznar Realty vs. Aying,

G.R. No. 128102, March
07, 2000
As a rule, the filing of a
supersedeas bond is
mandatory and if not filed,
the plaintiff is entitled as a
matter of right to the
immediate execution of the
judgment. An exception is
where the trial court did not
make any findings with
respect to any amount in
arrears, damages or costs
against the defendant,[10]
in which case no bond is
necessary to stay the
execution of the judgment.

Arcenas vs. Avelino, A.M.

NO. MTJ-05-1583, March
11, 2005
Respondent Judges act of
seeking assistance from
other government agencies
in order to justify the delay
will not excuse him from
complying with Section 10 of
the Revised Rules on
Summary Procedure.
Section 10 allows the court
to clarify matters if the same
is necessary, in the manner
provided therein.

Jimenez vs. Amdengan, A.

M. No. MTJ-12-1818,
February 13, 2013
Despite the simultaneous
submissions of the parties
respective Position Papers
on 04 January 2010,
respondent judge through
an Order dated 17 February
2010 still submitted the
case for decision. By that
time, the mandatory period
of 30 days within which to
render judgment on the case
had already lapsed. By
issuing the Order dated 17
February 2010 purportedly
submitting the case for
decision, he was subverting
Section 10 of the Rules on

Sps Reaport vs. Mariano

A.M. No. MTJ-00-1253, July
11, 2001
The judge does not deny
that after the last Answer
had been filed, the
preliminary conference was
first set only after 84 days
and actually held only after
almost two years. He was
duty-bound to comply with
the summary rules, yet, his
actions clearly and directly
contravened them.
Respondent judge is guilty of
Gross Misconduct.

Sps Leynes vs. CA, G.R.

No. 154462, January 19,
2011
The spouses Leynes were
served with the summons on
May 10, 2000. The last day
of the 10-day period within
which the spouses Leynes
should have filed their
answer, May 20, 2000, fell
on a Saturday. Thus, they
have until Monday to file it
even if there was a Saturday
duty for some court
employees.

Philippine Geriatrics
Foundation Inc. vs.
Layosa, A.M. No. MTJ-001249, September 04,
2001
The judge committed gross
misconduct when she failed
to render a decision on the
case within 30 days after the
court's receipt of the last
affidavit or position paper.
PGF claims that the last
position paper filed with the
court was the position paper
filed by PGF on December
14, 1996. When the judge
rendered her decision on
February 26, 1997, seventyfour (74) days had already
elapsed.

Diaz vs. Asadon, A.M.

No. A.M. No. MTJ-981152, June 02, 1998

The records show

that on March 18,
The respondent
1997, the judge
committed
issued on Order judge
grave abuse of
directing the
authority when
issuance of a
he hastily issued
warrant of arrest
a warrant of
against the
arrest without
Accused. The
giving the
following day,
Accused the
March 19, 1997,
opportunity to
another Order
present
was again issued
countervailing
directing Accused
evidence
to file his
counter-affidavit

Agunday vs. Trevalles,

A.M. No. MTJ-99-1236,
November 25,
1999
It took the judge
After the case
was filed, the
judge directed
Accused to
post bail. Four
months after,
he issued an
Order
declaring the
case to be
covered by the
RSP

4 months to
make the
required
determination &
before that, he
applied the
regular
procedure.A
patently
erroneous
determination to
avoid the
application of the
RSP is a ground
for disciplinary
action

Guillen vs. Nicolas, A.M.

MTJ-98-1166, December
04, 1998
Indeed, the respondent
Judge displayed gross
ignorance of the law when
he applied the Revised Rule
on Summary Procedure to
the five criminal cases in
question. True, 4 Criminal
Cases are covered by the
RSP. However, for the direct
assault case, the regular
procedure shall be followed.
This makes him grossly
ignorant of the law.

Uy & Bascug vs.

Javellana, A.M. No. MTJ07-1666, September 5,
2012
A case which has not been
previously referred to the
Lupong Tagapamayapa shall
be dismissed without
prejudice. A motion to
dismiss on the ground of
failure to comply with the
Lupon requirement is an
exception to the pleadings
prohibited by the Revised
Rule on Summary Procedure.

Hipe vs. Literato, A.M. No.

MTJ-11-1781, April 25,
2012
There is no argument that
the preliminary conference
was not conducted by the
Judge at all. But, the judge
explains his delay by citing
his duties in other courts
throughout Surigao del
Norte. Such an excuse is
unacceptable. The
additional court assignments
or designations imposed
upon Judge Literato does not
make him less liable for the
delay.

Cruz vs. Pascual, Adm.

Matter No. MTJ-93-782,
May 12, 1995

The trial was

completed on
23 October
1992. On 21
December
1992, a notice
was issued by
respondent
Judge setting
the
promulgation
of judgment
on 6 January
1993

Respondent
judge was
delayed in
deciding Crim.
Case No. 2139.
His excuse that
accused filed a
motion is flimsy
since the GuideNote submitted
by the accused
was not an
indispensable
pleading

Jacinto vs. Asis, A.M. No.

MTJ-12-1811 June 13,
2012
Although respondent Judge
Asis has a valid reason for
not being able to decide the
case within the 30-day
reglementary period, as
required by the Revised
Rules on Summary
Procedure, the same does
not totally absolve him from
administrative liability.
This Court agrees with the
OCA that the prudent course
of action would have been
for Judge Asis to request an
extension for acting on Civil
Case No. 05-35013