Scribd
Upload
46 views3 pages

Katarungan Pangbarangay

The Supreme Court ruled that the Court of Appeals erred in upholding the dismissal of the petitioner's complaint. The trial court dismissed the complaint motu proprio for failing to undergo barangay conciliation proceedings prior to filing, as required by law. However, the Supreme Court found that failure to comply with this pre-condition does not deprive courts of jurisdiction and can only be raised in a motion to dismiss. But here, the respondent was declared in default and failed to raise any objection, so the dismissal on that ground was grave error.

Uploaded by

Ahmad A. Tomawis
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
46 views3 pages

Katarungan Pangbarangay

The Supreme Court ruled that the Court of Appeals erred in upholding the dismissal of the petitioner's complaint. The trial court dismissed the complaint motu proprio for failing to undergo barangay conciliation proceedings prior to filing, as required by law. However, the Supreme Court found that failure to comply with this pre-condition does not deprive courts of jurisdiction and can only be raised in a motion to dismiss. But here, the respondent was declared in default and failed to raise any objection, so the dismissal on that ground was grave error.

Uploaded by

Ahmad A. Tomawis
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 3

ELIZABETH M.

LANSANGAN, Petitioner

vs.

ANTONIO S. CAISIP, Respondent

G.R. No. 212987

PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:

FACTS:

The petitioner filed a complaint for a sum of money and Damages dated June 27, 2012 against the
respondent. The petitioner, a resident of Camanse Street, Purok 4, Rose Park, Concepcion, Tarlac, alleged
that the respondent, a resident of Barangay Sto. Niño, Concepcion, Tarlac, executed a promissory note in
her favor of €2,522.00 payable in three (3) installments. As the respondent defaulted in his obligation under
the promissory note and refused to heed the petitioner's demands to comply therewith, the latter was
constrained to file the said complaint.

Since the respondent failed to file any responsive pleading, the petitioner moved to declare him in
default and for the MCTC to render judgment, which was granted in an Order dated August 28, 2012.
Accordingly, the case was submitted for resolution.

The MCTC motu proprio dismissed without prejudice the complaint for failure to comply with the
provisions of Republic Act No. (RA) 7160 which requires the prior referral of the dispute between residents
of the same barangay for conciliation proceedings before the filing of a case in court.

The petitioner moved for reconsideration but was however denied by MCTC. The MCTC opined
that the petitioner's failure to refer the matter for barangay conciliation proceedings rendered it without
jurisdiction to rule on her complaint. The petitioner filed a petition for Certiorari under RTC but was also
denied due to lack of barangay conciliation proceedings. CA also affirmed the ruling of RTC.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the CA erred in upholding the motu proprio dismissal of petitioner's complaint.

HELD:

Yes, the CA erred in upholding the motu proprio dismissal of petitioner's complaint.

Section 1, Rule 16 of the Rules of Court provides for the grounds that may be raised in a motion to dismiss
a complaint, to wit:

Section 1. Grounds. - Within the time for but before filing the answer to the complaint or pleading asserting
a claim, a motion to dismiss may be made on any of the following grounds:

(a) That the court has no jurisdiction over the person of the defending party;

(b) That the court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the claim;

(c) That venue is improperly laid;


(d) That the plaintiff has no legal capacity to sue;

(e) That there is another action pending between the same parties for the same cause;

(f) That the cause of action is barred by a prior judgment or by the statute of limitations;

(g) That the pleading asserting the claim states no cause of action;

(h) That the claim or demand set forth in the plaintiff's pleading has been paid, waived, abandoned, or
otherwise extinguished;

(i) That the claim on which the action is founded is unenforceable under the provisions of the statute of
frauds; and

(j) That a condition precedent for filing the claim has not been complied with.

As a general rule, the above-listed grounds must be invoked by the party-litigant at the earliest opportunity,
as in a motion to dismiss or in the answer; otherwise, such grounds are deemed waived. As an exception,
however, the courts may order the motu proprio dismissal of a case on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction
over the subject matter, litis pendentia, res judicata, and prescription of action, pursuant to Section 1, Rule
9 of the Rules of Court.

In this case, the motu proprio dismissal of the complaint was anchored on petitioner's failure to refer the
matter for barangay conciliation proceedings which in certain instances, is a condition precedent before
filing a case in court. As Section 412 (a) of RA 7160 provides, the conduct of barangay conciliation
proceedings is a pre-condition to the filing of a complaint involving any matter within the authority of the
lupon.

Lifted from Presidential Decree No. 1508,28 otherwise known as the "Katarungang Pambarangay Law,"
the primordial objective of a prior barangay conciliation is to reduce the number of court litigations and
prevent the deterioration of the quality of justice which has been brought by the indiscriminate filing of
cases in courts. Subject to certain exemptions, a party's failure to comply with this requirement before filing
a case in court would render his complaint dismissible on the ground of failure to comply with a condition
precedent, pursuant to Section 1 (j), Rule 16 of the Rules of Court.

Notably, in Aquino v. Aure, the Court clarified that such conciliation process is not a jurisdictional
requirement, such that noncompliance therewith cannot affect the jurisdiction which the court has otherwise
acquired over the subject matter or over the person of the defendant.

Ordinarily, non-compliance with the condition precedent [of prior barangay conciliation] could affect the
sufficiency of the plaintiff's cause of action and make his complaint vulnerable to dismissal on [the] ground
of lack of cause of action or prematurity; but the same would not prevent a court of competent jurisdiction
from exercising its power of adjudication over the case before it, where the defendants, as in this case, failed
to object to such exercise of jurisdiction in their answer and even during the entire proceedings a quo.

Here, the ground of non-compliance with a condition precedent, i.e., undergoing prior barangay conciliation
proceedings, was not invoked at the earliest opportunity, as in fact, respondent was declared in default for
failure to file a responsive pleading despite due notice. Therefore, it was grave error for the courts a quo to
order the dismissal of petitioner's complaint on said ground. Hence, in order to rectify the situation, the
Court finds it proper that the case be reinstated and remanded to the MCTC, which is the court of origin,
for its resolution on the merits.

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy