Facts

Parties and instances: [A. AG] (legal predecessor as plaintiff, appellant) is represented by attorney Michael Hunziker. The respondent is [B.] (defendant).

Background: On 11 April 2019 the legal predecessor of [A. AG] filed an action with the District Court of Zurich. It sought payment of CHF 3'873.60 plus interest at 5% since 18 October 2011 and the removal of the objection in debt enforcement proceedings No. xxx of the Debt Enforcement Office [U.] .

First-instance decision: By order of 15 November 2019, the District Court declined to enter into the action for lack of local jurisdiction. In an alternative ground, it stated that the action would have had to be dismissed had it been admitted. The main hearing had been fully conducted.

Cantonal complaint proceedings: The legal predecessor challenged the order before the Obergericht of the Canton of Zurich, First Civil Chamber. It requested that the order be set aside and remitted for a new decision, a party compensation award, and that the court costs be imposed on the defendant. It did not make a substantive request (payment claim).

Cantonal decision: By decision of 7 October 2020 (PP200005), the Obergericht declined to enter into the complaint, as the complaint requests did not meet the statutory requirements because substantive requests were missing.

Federal Supreme Court proceedings: [A. AG] filed a subsidiary constitutional appeal and requested that the Obergericht decision be set aside and remitted for a new decision; alternatively, that the respondent be ordered to pay CHF 3'873.60 plus interest and that the objection be removed. The Obergericht waived a response, and the respondent did not comment.

Legal question: Whether the Obergericht, by declining to enter into the complaint for lack of a substantive request, violated constitutional rights (in particular Art. 29 para. 1 Cst., prohibition of excessive formalism).

Considerations

Admissibility of the constitutional appeal: The Obergericht decision is a final decision (Art. 117 in conjunction with Art. 90 FSCA) of a last cantonal instance (Art. 114 in conjunction with Art. 75 para. 1 FSCA). The amount in dispute does not reach the monetary threshold of Art. 74 para. 1 FSCA, so the civil appeal is excluded. The subsidiary constitutional appeal is therefore the admissible remedy (Art. 113 FSCA).

Scope of review and facts: Only violations of constitutional rights may be complained of in a constitutional appeal (Art. 116 FSCA). The Federal Supreme Court bases its decision on the facts established by the lower court (Art. 118 para. 1 FSCA) and deviates from them only if the finding was made in violation of constitutional rights and this is specifically complained of (Art. 118 para. 2 FSCA). Supplementation of the facts is permitted only with precise references to the file.

Requirement of a substantive request: The cantonal complaint must be submitted with reasons (Art. 321 para. 1 CPC) and must contain requests for relief. Since the appellate instance decides reformatively if the appeal is upheld and the matter is ready for decision (Art. 327 para. 3 let. b CPC), a specific substantive request must in principle be made, and in the case of monetary claims quantified, which may be adopted unchanged in the judgment. This is dispensed with where the appellate instance must necessarily decide cassatorily (Art. 327 para. 3 let. a CPC), for example in the case of a first-instance decision declining to enter into the action.

No complaint regarding the facts: The appellant argued that the complaint reasons and the prior files clearly showed that it maintained the claim. In doing so, it merely criticized the lower court's finding of the procedural facts, without raising a complaint about the facts that meets the requirements of reasoning and without precise references to the file. The lower court was therefore entitled to proceed from the absence of a substantive request.

No excessive formalism (Art. 29 para. 1 Cst.): The appellant did not complain of an incorrect application of Art.…