THIRD DIVISION
|
MILAGROS G. LUMBUAN,* Petitioner, - versus - |
G.R. No. 155713 Present: QUISUMBING,
J., Chairperson, CARPIO, CARPIO MORALES, TINGA, and VELASCO,
JR., JJ. |
|
ALFREDO A. RONQUILLO, Respondent. |
Promulgated: May 5, 2006 |
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
QUISUMBING, J.:
This
petition for review on certiorari seeks to reverse and set aside the Decision[1] dated
The salient facts, as
found by the Court of Appeals,[3] are as follows:
Petitioner Milagros G. Lumbuan is the
registered owner of P5,000. The
parties also agreed that there will be a 10% annual increase in rent for the
succeeding two years, i.e., 1996 and
1997,[4]
and the leased premises will be used exclusively for the respondent’s fastfood
business, unless any other use is given, with the petitioner’s prior written
consent.[5]
While the respondent at the start operated
a fastfood business, he later used the premises as residence without the
petitioner’s prior written consent. He also failed to pay the 10% annual
increase in rent of P500/month starting 1996 and P1,000/month in
1997 to the present. Despite repeated
verbal and written demands, the respondent refused to pay the arrears and
vacate the leased premises.
On
On December 8, 1997, the petitioner
filed against the respondent an action for Unlawful Detainer, docketed as Civil
Case No. 157922-CV. It was raffled to the
Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) 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.
Upon appeal, the case was raffled to the
Regional Trial Court (RTC) of
The respondent sought reconsideration
but the RTC denied the motion in an Order dated
The petitioner filed a motion for
reconsideration, which was denied by the appellate court. Hence, this present petition.
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
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.
SO ORDERED.[12]
The respondent appealed the foregoing decision. The case was raffled to RTC of Manila, Branch
22, and docketed as Civil Case No. 00-98173.
The RTC ruled in favor of the petitioner and dismissed the appeal. The respondent elevated the case to the Court
of Appeals, where it is now pending.
The
sole issue for our resolution is:
[WHETHER] THE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN DISMISSING THE
COMPLAINT FOR THE ALLEGED FAILURE OF THE PARTIES TO COMPLY WITH THE MANDATORY
MEDIATION AND CONCILIATION PROCEEDINGS IN THE BARANGAY LEVEL.[13]
With
the parties’ subsequent meeting with the Lupon
Chairman or Punong Barangay for further conciliation
proceedings, the procedural defect was cured. Nevertheless, if only to clear any lingering
doubt why the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the complaint, we shall
delve on the issue.
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. 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.
The
primordial objective of the Katarungang Pambarangay Rules,[14]
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[15] requires the parties to undergo a
conciliation process before the Lupon Chairman or the Pangkat as
a precondition to filing a complaint in court,[16]
thus:
SECTION
412. Conciliation. – (a) Pre-condition to Filing of Complaint in
Court. – No complaint, petition, action, or proceeding involving any matter
within the authority of the lupon
shall be filed or instituted directly in court or any other government office
for adjudication, unless there has been a confrontation between the parties
before the lupon
chairman or the pangkat,
and that no conciliation or settlement has been reached as certified by the lupon
secretary or pangkat secretary as attested to by the lupon or pangkat chairman….
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.[17]
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.[18]
Finally, this Court is aware that the
resolution of the substantial issues in this case is pending with the Court of
Appeals. While ordinarily, we would have
determined the validity of the parties’ substantial claims since to await the
appellate court’s decision will only frustrate speedy justice and, in any
event, would be a futile exercise, as in all probability the case would end up
with this Court, we find that we cannot do so in the instant case.
It must be underscored that supervening
events have taken place before the lower courts where the parties have been adequately
heard, and all the issues have been ventilated. Since the records of those proceedings are with
the Court of Appeals, it is in a better position to fully adjudicate the rights of the parties. To rely on the records before this Court would
prevent us from rendering a sound judgment in this case. Thus, we are left with no alternative
but to leave the matter of ruling on the merits to the appellate court.
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.
SO ORDERED.
|
|
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING Associate Justice |
WE CONCUR:
|
ANTONIO T. CARPIO Associate Justice |
|
|
CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES Associate Justice |
DANTE O. TINGA Associate Justice |
|
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR. Associate Justice |
|
A T T E S T A T I O N
I attest that the conclusions in the
above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to
the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
|
|
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING Associate Justice Chairperson |
C E R T I F I C A T I O N
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII
of the Constitution, and the Division Chairperson’s Attestation, I certify that
the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before
the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
|
|
ARTEMIO V. PANGANIBAN Chief Justice |
* Also referred to as “Lambuan” in some parts of the records.
[1] Rollo, pp. 54-58. Penned by Associate Justice Hilarion L. Aquino, with Associate Justices Edgardo P. Cruz, and Amelita G. Tolentino concurring.
[2]
[3] With editorial changes.
[4] Rollo, pp. 35-36.
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8] CA rollo, pp. 30-32.
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13] Rollo, p. 118.
[14] Codified in Sections 399 to 422, Chapter 7, Title
One, Book III and Section 515, Title One, Book IV of Republic Act No. 7160, shall
be known as the Pambarangay Law and these implementing rules and regulations
shall be known as the Katarungang Pambarangay Rules.
[15] Otherwise known as the Local Government Code of 1991.
[16]
[17]
[18]