Statutory Construction

Professor: Atty. M.Mikhail Lee Maxino

G.R. No. 116695
Ponente: Gesmundo, J.
Gachon vs Devera June 20, 1997 Submitted by: Submitted
on:

Petitioners: Respondents:
Victoria G. Gachon and Alex Guevarra Hon. Norberto Devera, Jr., Presiding Judge, Branch
XXIV, RTC, Iloilo City; HON. JOSE R. ASTORGA,
(Patricio Guevarra) Presiding Judge, Branch I, Municipal Trial Court in
Cities, Iloilo City; and SUSANA GUEVARA, represented
by her attorney-in-fact, ROSALIE GUEVARA

DOCTRINE OF THE CASE:

Petition for Review - a is a formal request for an appellate tribunal to review and make changes
to the judgment of a lower court or administrative body

Mandatory Statutes – a statute that requires a course of action as opposed to merely permitting it.
It is a statute which leaves nothing to the discretion of the court in respect of compliance with its
terms. If not followed renders the proceeding to which it relates illegal and void. Typically found by
the use of words such as "must", "will" and "shall".

NATURE OF PETITION:
Petition for review assailing the Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Iloilo City,
Branch 24, which dismissed a special civil action for certiorari and injunction filed by
herein petitioners
RELEVANT LAWS:

Section 6, of the Rule on Summary Procedure

(if pwede, paste here the law in question or used, only the relevant part)
FACTS:

1. A complaint for forcible entry was filed by Private Respondent Susana Guevara
against Patricio Guevara and Petitioners Victoria Gachon and Alex Guevara
before the Municipal Trial Court for Cities (MTCC) of Iloilo City.
2. Summons was served on and received by petitioners on August 25, 1993,
directing them to file an answer within the reglementary period of ten (10) days.
3. Patricio Guevara was abroad at that time; hence, the MTCC did not acquire
jurisdiction over him.
4. On September 4, 1993, petitioners filed with the MTCC an urgent motion for
extension of time to file an answer.
5. On September 7, 1993, the MTCC denied the motion on the ground that it was a
prohibited pleading under the Rule on Summary Procedure. MTCC denied the
motion on the ground that it was a prohibited pleading under the Rule on
Summary Procedure.
6. On September 8, 1993, or more than ten days from their receipt of the
summons, petitioner submitted an urgent motion praying for the admission of
their answer, which was attached thereto.
7. Two days later, petitioners filed another motion pleading for the admission of an
amended answer.
 8. On September 23, 1993, the MTCC denied the motions and considered the case
submitted for resolution.

Issues Ruling
(1) WON Section 6, of the Rule on Summary Procedure,
Mandatory or Directory Statutes, such that an answer filed Mandatory
beyond the time stated be accepted

RULING:
RULING: Section 6, of the Rule on Summary Procedure is a MANDATORY statute, thus,
answer/s must be filed within the reglementary period.

It is clear that the use of the word "shall" in the Rule on Summary Procedure
underscores the mandatory character of the challenged provisions. Giving the
provisions a directory application would subvert the nature of the Rule on Summary
Procedure and defeat its objective of expediting the adjudication of suits.

Disposition

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the petition is DENIED and the

assailed Decision is AFFIRMED in toto. Double costs against petitioners.

SO ORDERED.