G.R. NO. 143331 - FIVE STAR MARKETING CO., INC., REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT SALVADOR BOOC, VS. JAMES L. BOOC.

Ruling

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the plaintiff most respectfully prays of this Honorable Court, after due hearing, judgment be rendered in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant by: a) Ordering the defendant to vacate the above-described premises, and return the possession thereof to the plaintiff; b) Ordering the defendant to pay the monthly rentals of P40,000.00 of said premises from April 1999 until the defendant delivers possession of the premises to the plaintiff, as and by way of actual and compensatory damages; c) Ordering the defendant to pay the amount of P20,000.00, as and by way of attorneys fees plus P2,000.00 per court appearance; d) To pay costs of suit. Other relief and remedies as may be just and equitable under the premises are likewise prayed for. [18] In his answer, respondent raised several defenses among which being that petitioner has no cause of action for ejectment against respondent; that petitioner has no legal personality to sue; that the court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter; and that the premises in question have been occupied by the respondent for free since the erection of the building, they being the share of his father Sheikding; and that respondent and his father filed a case in the Securities and Exchange Commission against petitioner and against the president of petitioner corporation. [19] During the preliminary conference on July 13, 1999, the MTCC directed the parties to explore the possibility of an amicable settlement. Consequently, the preliminary conference was reset to August 3, 1999. On July 24, 1999, respondent, through counsel, sent petitioner a telegram asking for a postponement of the preliminary conference set on August 3, 1999. [20] On July 26, 1999, respondents counsel filed a Motion to Reset [21] the preliminary conference set for August 3, 1999 to August 24, 1999, allegedly due to an unpostponable personal engagement. Petitioner, through counsel, opposed the motion arguing that the motion violated the provision of Sec. 11, Rule 13 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, [22] hence, it is considered as not filed; that it is a dilatory motion, a prohibited pleading pursuant to Sec. 19 of the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure; [23] and that no motion for postponement of the preliminary conference shall be allowed except on meritorious grounds. [24] On August 3, 1999, the scheduled preliminary conference pushed through. Petitioner and its counsel appeared but respondent and his counsel failed to appear despite due notice. On August 18, 1999, the MTCC issued an Order [25] denying respondents motion to reset on the grounds that it failed to comply with the required explanation why service was not done personally pursuant to Sec. 11, Rule 13 of the Rules [26] and that counsel failed to establish that his motion is meritorious. Consequently, the court ruled on the basis of the facts alleged in the complaint. The dispositive portion of the order reads as follows: WHEREFORE, findin