Galang v. CA

Facts:

In an ejectment suit filed by private respondent Leonardo de Leon, owner of a 6-door apartment at 1177 Quiricada Extension, Tondo, Manila, against petitioners spouses Ruben and Luz Galang, lessee of one of the units, the MTC Manila rendered a a decision ordering petitioners herein to vacate the premises in question, to pay P130 per month from September 1985 until the premises are vacated, and P1,000 attorney's fees.

Petitioners appealed in RTC, which affirmed the decision of MTC.

Petitioners filed a petition for review in CA. The petition was given due course which also required petitioners to deposit P80.40 for costs within 3 days from the notice thereof, failure of which, the petition shall be dismissed. Petitioners’ counsel received the resolution 4 days from the receipt and filed a motion for extension of 30 days within which to pay costs.

Petitioners filed a supplemental MR, followed by a memorandum in support of the motion and supplemental MR with prayer for the acceptance of the deposit of P80.40 and for the issuance of a restraining order. CA denied.

Issue: 
Whether or not there was grave abuse of discretion in CA.

Held:

No.

It is not entirely correct for petitioners to claim that the dismissal of the petition for review of the decision of the RTC in cases falling under the original exclusive jurisdiction of municipal and city courts on the ground of non-payment of costs within three (3) days from notice is without authority and legal basis. CA, pursuant to its rule-making power under Rule 54 of the RoC, promulgated an en banc Resolution on August 12, 1971 governing the practice to be observed in elevating to the Court of Appeals for review decisions of CFIs in cases falling under the original exclusive jurisdiction of municipal and city courts.

The rule is clear that upon failure of the petitioner to deposit the amount for costs within the said period of 3 days, the petition shall be dismissed. Records show that petitioners filed on September 9, 1986, or one 1 day after expiration of the three 3 day period, a motion for a 30-day extension of time to deposit costs. Yet even if said motion were granted by the Court of Appeals, the purchase and payment by petitioner of Money Order No. 6618804 On October 13, 1986 for costs was 5 days late from the expiration of the supposed 30-day extension on October 8, 1986. Manifestly, there was no serious intention on the part of petitioners to comply in good faith with the order of the Court of Appeals.

Procedural rules are not to be belittled or dismissed simply because their non-observance may have resulted in prejudice to a party's substantive rights. Like all rules, they are required to be followed except only for the most persuasive of reasons when they may be relaxed to relieve a litigant of an injustice not commensurate with the degree of his thoughtlessness in not complying with the procedure prescribed.

Petitioners have not pleaded the most persuasive of reasons which would make this Court relax the cited rule of procedure. Even that early stage of the case, petitioners had already chosen to ignore the order of the RTC. The Court cannot now stamp with approval the second defiance of the rule of procedure before the CA.

It is settled that a lease on a month to month basis is a lease contract with a definite period. As this Court ruled in Baens vs. Court of Appeals, even if the month to month arrangement is on a verbal basis, if it is shown that the lessor needs the property for his own use or for the use of any immediate member of the family or for any of the other statutory grounds to eject under Section 5 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 25, which happens to be applicable, then the lease is considered terminated as of the end of the month, after proper notice or demand to vacate has been given.14 As early as June 7, 1985, private respondents had demanded that petitioners vacate the premises in question on September 15, 1985. The ejectment case was filed on October 7, 1985 after a lapse of more than 3 months from receipt of said notice.

That law, let it be stressed, is not less humane because it favors the landlord, for social justice is for fairness to all or it is no justice at all.