The Rules on Expedited Procedures in the First Level Courts (REPFLEC) which took effect on 11 April 2022 provide for a new Rule on Small Claims and a new Rule on Summary Procedure (2022 RSP). The REPFLEC provides that its provisions, particularly the 2022 RSP, shall apply to ejectment cases or actions for forcible entry and unlawful detainer.
However, several provisions of the REPFLEC are inconsistent with the provisions of Rule 70 of the Rules of Court on ejectment cases. For instance, the period to file an answer under the REPFLEC is 30 days from service of summons, while the period to file an answer under Rule 70 is ten days from service of summons. Permissive counterclaims are not allowed under Rule 70, while they are allowed subject to conditions under the REPFLEC.[1] While there is a special provision on requirements for staying an MTC judgment against the defendant which is found in Section 19 of Rule 70 (i.e., the posting of a supersedeas bond and the making of periodic deposits), no equivalent provision is found in the REPFLEC. Under the REPFLEC, the judgment of the RTC on appeal is immediately final and executory,[2] while under Rule 70, the RTC judgment against the defendant on appeal, while immediately executory, may be appealed by the defendant.
These variances between Rule 70 and the REPFLEC can be quite confusing to practitioners and judges. The ideal solution would be to revise Rule 70 to harmonize it with the REPFLEC.
In the meantime, my view is that prior to such revision, the pragmatic approach would be to consider Rule 70 as the governing provision. This is based on the principle of statutory construction that a special rule prevails over a general rule. Where two statutes are of equal theoretical application to a particular case, the one specially designed for said case must prevail over the other.[3] Rule 70 provides for a nuanced rule specially crafted for accion interdictal and it seems improbable that this nuanced and specially designed rule would be jettisoned in one fell swoop by the passage of the REPFLEC.
The REPFLEC does provide that in cases of inconsistency between the REPFLEC and the regular procedure prescribed in the Rules of Court, it is the REPFLEC which would prevail.[4] However, this provision on construction of the REPFLEC does not apply to Rule 70 which is a rule not of regular but of summary procedure.[5]
Another approach is to consider some REPFLEC provisions, such as those dealing with the form of pleadings and reglementary periods, as having superseded the relevant provisions of Rule 70. This bifurcated approach, however, would prove quite unwieldy in practice given the uneven and diverging interpretations by the trial courts that would inevitably ensue. This is why I suggest that Rule 70 should be considered for the nonce as the governing rule on ejectment cases.
-oOo-
[1] Rule III(A), Sec. 7.
[2] Rule III(C), Sec. 2.
[3] Commissioner of Customs v. Court of Tax Appeals, 148 SCRA 693, 697 (1987).
[4] Rule II, Sec. 1.
[5] Section 3, Rule 70, Rules of Court.
Very informative. I want to buy your 2023 ed Bar Q & A, but I am from Cagayan de Oro City. There is no central book store here.
You may order online, Marly, from Central Books or from resellers.
Thank you Atty. this is not only helping law student to undeestand the law, but rather this will help enlighten, couples whose union is disfunctioning to the real purpose of a marriage life.
I think your comment was directed to my article on evidentiary standard in marriage nullification cases under Art. 36 of the Family Code. Thanks for the comment.
Atty., how would you reconcile Section 21 of Rule 70 and Sec 2 of Rule III of REPFLEC vis-a-vis Sec 1 Rule II of REPFLEC? For the purpose of the bar exam, should we stick with the original tenor of Rule 70?
For purposes of the bar, my suggestion is to consider Rule 70 as the governing provision. This is based on the principle of statutory construction that a special rule prevails over a general rule. Where two statutes are of equal theoretical application to a particular case, the one specially designed for said case must prevail over the other.[3] Rule 70 provides for a nuanced rule specially crafted for accion interdictal and it seems improbable that this nuanced and specially designed rule would be jettisoned in one fell swoop by the passage of the REPFLEC.