1) Petitioner Lumbuan leased a lot to respondent Ronquillo for 3 years at P5,000 per month, with an annual 10% rent increase. Ronquillo failed to comply with lease terms and pay rent.
2) Lumbuan filed an unlawful detainer case which was granted by the MeTC. However, the RTC set this aside due to lack of barangay conciliation. The CA then dismissed the case entirely.
3) The Supreme Court ruled that while no barangay pangkat was formed, the parties' meeting with the barangay chairman constituted substantial compliance with conciliation requirements. It reinstated the MeTC decision in favor of Lumbuan
1) Petitioner Lumbuan leased a lot to respondent Ronquillo for 3 years at P5,000 per month, with an annual 10% rent increase. Ronquillo failed to comply with lease terms and pay rent.
2) Lumbuan filed an unlawful detainer case which was granted by the MeTC. However, the RTC set this aside due to lack of barangay conciliation. The CA then dismissed the case entirely.
3) The Supreme Court ruled that while no barangay pangkat was formed, the parties' meeting with the barangay chairman constituted substantial compliance with conciliation requirements. It reinstated the MeTC decision in favor of Lumbuan
1) Petitioner Lumbuan leased a lot to respondent Ronquillo for 3 years at P5,000 per month, with an annual 10% rent increase. Ronquillo failed to comply with lease terms and pay rent.
2) Lumbuan filed an unlawful detainer case which was granted by the MeTC. However, the RTC set this aside due to lack of barangay conciliation. The CA then dismissed the case entirely.
3) The Supreme Court ruled that while no barangay pangkat was formed, the parties' meeting with the barangay chairman constituted substantial compliance with conciliation requirements. It reinstated the MeTC decision in favor of Lumbuan
1) Petitioner Lumbuan leased a lot to respondent Ronquillo for 3 years at P5,000 per month, with an annual 10% rent increase. Ronquillo failed to comply with lease terms and pay rent.
2) Lumbuan filed an unlawful detainer case which was granted by the MeTC. However, the RTC set this aside due to lack of barangay conciliation. The CA then dismissed the case entirely.
3) The Supreme Court ruled that while no barangay pangkat was formed, the parties' meeting with the barangay chairman constituted substantial compliance with conciliation requirements. It reinstated the MeTC decision in favor of Lumbuan
• Petitioner Milagros G. Lumbuan is the registered owner of a lot in Gagalangin, Tondo, Manila and Lumbuan (lessor) leased a lot to respondent Ronquillo (lessee) for 3 years at a rental of P5000/month. • On February 20, 1995, they agreed that: (a) there will be an annual 10% increase in rent for the next 2 years; and (b) the leased premises shall be used only for lessee’s fastfood business. • Ronquillo failed to abide by the conditions, and refused to pay or vacate the leased premises despite Lumbuan’s repeated verbal demands. • On November 15, 1997 Lumbuan referred the matter to the Barangay Chairman’s Office but no amicable settlement was reached. The barangay chairman issued a Certificate to File Action. • On December 8, 1997 Lumbuan filed an action for Unlawful Detainer • On December 15, 1997, the respondent received the summons and copy of the complaint. • On December 24, 1997, he filed his Answer by mail. • January 7, 1998 - Before the MeTC could receive the respondent’s Answer, the petitioner filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. • January 15, 1998 - Acting upon this motion, the MeTC rendered a decision ordering the respondent to vacate and surrender possession of the leased premises; to pay the petitioner the amount of P46,000 as unpaid rentals with legal interest until fully paid; and to pay the petitioner P5,000 as attorney’s fees plus cost of the suit. • The respondent then filed a Manifestation calling the attention of the MeTC to the fact that his Answer was filed on time and praying that the decision be set aside. The MeTC denied the prayer, ruling that the Manifestation was in the nature of a motion for reconsideration which is a prohibited pleading under the Rules on Summary Procedure • On July 8, 1998 RTC set aside the MeTC decision and directed the parties to go back to the Lupon Chairman or Punong Barangay for further proceedings and to comply strictly with the condition that should the parties fail to reach an amicable settlement, the entire case will be remanded to the MeTC for it to decide the case anew. • March 15, 1999 - The respondent sought reconsideration but the RTC denied the motion • On April 12, 2002 - The CA reversed the RTC and ordered the dismissal of the ejectment case, ruling that when a complaint is prematurely instituted, as when the mandatory mediation and conciliation in the barangay level had not been complied with, the court should dismiss the case and not just remand the records to the court of origin so that the parties may go through the prerequisite proceedings.
- In the meantime, while this petition was pending before this Court, the parties went through barangay conciliation proceedings as directed by the RTC of Manila, Branch 38. Again, they failed to arrive at an amicable settlement prompting the RTC to issue an Order 11 remanding the case to the MeTC of Manila, Branch 6, where the proceedings took place anew. On April 25, 2000, the MeTC rendered a second decision, the dispositive portion of which reads: WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment on the merits is hereby rendered for the plaintiff as follows:
1. Ordering defendant and all persons claiming right of possession under him to voluntarily vacate the property located at Lot 19-A Block 2844, Gagalangin, Tondo, Manila and surrender possession thereof to the plaintiff;
2. Ordering defendant to pay to plaintiff the amount of P387,512.00 as actual damages in the form of unpaid rentals and its agreed increase up to January 2000 and to pay the amount of P6,500.00 a month thereafter until the same is actually vacated;
3. Ordering the defendant to pay to plaintiff the sum of P10,000.00 as and for attorney’s fees plus cost of the suit.
• This petition for review on certiorari seeks to reverse and set aside the Decision1 dated April 12, 2002, of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 52436 and its Resolution2 dated October 14, 2002, denying the petitioner’s motion for reconsideration.
PETITIONER’S CONTENTION:
- The petitioner alleges that the parties have gone through barangay conciliation proceedings to settle their dispute as shown by the Certificate to File Action issued by the Lupon/Pangkat Secretary and attested by the Lupon/Pangkat Chairman
RESPONDENT’S CONTENTION: - The respondent, on the other hand, contends that whether there was defective compliance or no compliance at all with the required conciliation, the case should have been dismissed
ISSUES RULING 1. Whether the CA properly dismissed complaint for failure of the parties to comply with the mandatory mediation and conciliation proceedings in the NO barangay level
RATIONALE/ANALYSIS/LEGAL BASIS 1 NO. It should be noted that although no pangkat was formed since no amicable settlement was reached by the parties before the Katarungang Pambarangay, there was substantial compliance with Section 412(a) of R.A. 7160. While admittedly no pangkat was constituted, the parties met at the office of the Barangay Chairman for possible settlement. Thereby, the act of petitioner Lumbuan in raising the matter to the Katarungang Pambarangay and the subsequent confrontation of the lessee and lessor before the Lupon Chairman or the pangkat is sufficient compliance with the precondition for filing the case in court. This is true notwithstanding the mandate of Section 410(b) of the same law that the Barangay Chairman shall constitute a pangkat if he fails in his mediation efforts. Section 410(b) should be construed together with Section 412, as well as the circumstances obtaining in and peculiar to the case. On this score, it is significant that the Barangay Chairman or Punong Barangay is herself the Chairman of the Lupon under the Local Government Code
The primordial objective of the Katarungang Pambarangay Rules, is to reduce the number of court litigations and prevent the deterioration of the quality of justice which has been brought about by the indiscriminate filing of cases in the courts. To attain this objective, Section 412(a) of Republic Act No. 7160 requires the parties to undergo a conciliation process before the Lupon Chairman or the Pangkat as a precondition to filing a complaint in court. Here, the Lupon/Pangkat Chairman and Lupon/Pangkat Secretary signed the Certificate to File Action stating that no settlement was reached by the parties. While admittedly no pangkat was constituted, it was not denied that the parties met at the office of the Barangay Chairman for possible settlement. The efforts of the Barangay Chairman, however, proved futile as no agreement was reached. Although no pangkat was formed, in our mind, there was substantial compliance with the law. It is noteworthy that under the aforequoted provision, the confrontation before the Lupon Chairman or the pangkat is sufficient compliance with the precondition for filing the case in court. This is true notwithstanding the mandate of Section 410(b) of the same law that the Barangay Chairman shall constitute a pangkat if he fails in his mediation efforts. Section 410(b) should be construed together with Section 412, as well as the circumstances obtaining in and peculiar to the case. Disposition
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 52436 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE, and the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 38, in Civil Case No. 98-87311 is AFFIRMED.
The Court of Appeals is ordered to proceed with the appeal in CA – G.R. No. 73453 and decide the case with dispatch.
Separate Opinions
FULL TEXT CASE: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/may2006/gr_155713_2006.html
Joseph Hiram Holt, JR., A Minor, by His Next Friend, Joseph Hiram Holt and Joseph Hiram Holt and Elwyna Holt v. Raleigh City Board of Education, A Body Corporate, 265 F.2d 95, 4th Cir. (1959)
