Quiz 15

Plaintiff A filed a complaint for unlawful detainer in the Metropolitan Trial Court. The assessed value of the property involved was well within the jurisdictional limit for unlawful detainer cases in the first level courts. However, instead of requiring the defendant to answer, the court outrightly dismissed the complaint because the attached lease agreement appeared to have expired on its face.

Did the court act correctly in outrightly dismissing the complaint?

Answer explanation

No. Under the Rules on Expedited Procedure applicable to unlawful detainer cases, the court's initial action, if there is no ground for outright dismissal, is to issue summons and require the defendant to file an answer. While an expired lease agreement might eventually lead to a judgment against the plaintiff if the right to possess has indeed ceased, it is a matter of defense that should be raised by the defendant in an answer. Outright dismissal at this stage, without allowing the defendant to be heard and without fully considering potential extensions or other agreements not evident on the face of the expired contract, was incorrect.

In a case under the Rules on Expedited Procedure, both the plaintiff and the defendant were duly notified of the preliminary conference. The plaintiff failed to appear. Consequently, the court immediately dismissed the plaintiff's complaint with prejudice.

Did the court act correctly in immediately dismissing the complaint with prejudice?

Answer explanation

Yes. Under the Rules on Expedited Procedure, the failure of the plaintiff to appear at the preliminary conference shall be a cause for dismissal of the complaint. The dismissal in this instance is specifically provided for in the rules to ensure the swift disposition of cases covered by these rules.

Plaintiff D filed a case in the Small Claims Court against Defendant E, seeking reimbursement for Php 750,000 representing the amount Plaintiff D paid to Defendant E for undelivered goods. In the same complaint, Plaintiff D also included a claim for Php 200,000 as compensation for the lost profits Plaintiff D allegedly incurred due to the non-delivery of the goods. The court accepted the entire complaint.

Did the court act correctly in accepting a complaint in Small Claims Court?

Answer explanation

No. The court did not act correctly. The Rule on Small Claims generally covers specific types of claims, often primarily for the recovery of money. Claims for consequential damages like lost profits are outside the purview of Small Claims Court and should be pursued in a regular court action. The court should have either directed Plaintiff D to amend the complaint to remove the claim for lost profits or advised Plaintiff D to file the entire case under the regular rules of procedure.

In a Small Claims case, Plaintiff F sued Defendant G for reimbursement of Php 30,000. Defendant G did not file a formal Response within the prescribed period. On the day of the hearing, Defendant G appeared and attempted to present a written "Motion to Dismiss" arguing that the Small Claims Court lacked jurisdiction over the subject matter. Defendant G also sought to introduce documentary evidence to support this jurisdictional argument. The court refused to accept the "Motion to Dismiss" as it is a prohibited pleading under the Rule on Small Claims and also stated that Defendant G was barred from presenting any documentary evidence due to the failure to file a timely Response.

Did the court act correctly in refusing to accept the "Motion to Dismiss" and in barring Defendant G from presenting documentary evidence to support the claim of lack of jurisdiction?

Answer explanation

The court acted correctly in refusing to accept the "Motion to Dismiss" as it is a prohibited pleading under the Rule on Small Claims. However, the correctness of barring the documentary evidence regarding jurisdiction is less clear-cut. While the Evidence Bar Rule typically applies to the merits of the claim and any counterclaim, the issue of subject matter jurisdiction can generally be raised at any stage. Evidence pertaining solely to whether the court has the authority to hear the case might be treated differently from evidence related to the factual merits. The court should likely have allowed Defendant G to present evidence strictly limited to the jurisdictional question, even if a formal Response was not filed, as lack of jurisdiction renders all proceedings void.

Atty. KK, a lawyer, filed a small claims case against Ms. LL to recover Php 80,000 in unpaid professional fees for legal services Atty. KK personally rendered in a matter unrelated to the small claims case itself. During the hearing, Atty. KK represented himself. Ms. LL objected, arguing that lawyers are not allowed to appear in Small Claims Court.

Did Atty. KK act correctly by representing himself in his own small claims case?

Answer explanation

Yes. The prohibition on legal representation in Small Claims Court generally applies to lawyers appearing on behalf of a client. When a lawyer is the claimant or the defendant in their personal capacity, they have the right to represent themselves. In this scenario, Atty. KK is the claimant seeking to recover fees for his own services, making him a litigant appearing for himself, which is permissible under the rules.