Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 45 views

    Lumbuan v. Ronquillo, G.R. No. 155713, May 5, 2006

    Uploaded by

    CHRISTY NGALOY
    - Milagros Lumbuan leased a lot to Alfredo Ronquillo for 3 years for use as a fast food business but he later used it as a residence without permission and failed to pay rental increases. Lumbuan filed an ejectment case that was dismissed for not undergoing barangay conciliation. - The issue is whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the case for failure to comply with mandatory barangay mediation. - The Supreme Court ruled that subsequent barangay conciliation cured the procedural defect. While pre-filing conciliation is required, confrontation with the barangay chairman is sufficient compliance. The Court of Appeals decision was reversed.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Lumbuan v. Ronquillo, G.R. No. 155713, May 5, 2006

    Uploaded by

    CHRISTY NGALOY
    45 views3 pages
    - Milagros Lumbuan leased a lot to Alfredo Ronquillo for 3 years for use as a fast food business but he later used it as a residence without permission and failed to pay rental increases. Lumbuan filed an ejectment case that was dismissed for not undergoing barangay conciliation. - The issue is whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the case for failure to comply with mandatory barangay mediation. - The Supreme Court ruled that subsequent barangay conciliation cured the procedural defect. While pre-filing conciliation is required, confrontation with the barangay chairman is sufficient compliance. The Court of Appeals decision was reversed.

    Original Description:

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    - Milagros Lumbuan leased a lot to Alfredo Ronquillo for 3 years for use as a fast food business but he later used it as a residence without permission and failed to pay rental increases. Lumbuan filed an ejectment case that was dismissed for not undergoing barangay conciliation. - The issue is whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the case for failure to comply with mandatory barangay mediation. - The Supreme Court ruled that subsequent barangay conciliation cured the procedural defect. While pre-filing conciliation is required, confrontation with the barangay chairman is sufficient compliance. The Court of Appeals decision was reversed.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    45 views3 pages

    Lumbuan v. Ronquillo, G.R. No. 155713, May 5, 2006

    Uploaded by

    CHRISTY NGALOY
    - Milagros Lumbuan leased a lot to Alfredo Ronquillo for 3 years for use as a fast food business but he later used it as a residence without permission and failed to pay rental increases. Lumbuan filed an ejectment case that was dismissed for not undergoing barangay conciliation. - The issue is whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the case for failure to comply with mandatory barangay mediation. - The Supreme Court ruled that subsequent barangay conciliation cured the procedural defect. While pre-filing conciliation is required, confrontation with the barangay chairman is sufficient compliance. The Court of Appeals decision was reversed.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 3

    MILAGROS G.

    LUMBUAN,* Petitioner vs. ALFREDO A. RONQUILLO, Respondent


    G.R. No. 155713             May 5, 2006

    NATURE OF THE CASE: This petition for review on certiorari seeks to reverse and set
    aside the Decision of the Court of Appeals and its Resolution, denying the petitioner’s
    motion for reconsideration.

    FACT: Petitioner Milagros G. Lumbuan is the registered owner of Lot a located in


    Gagalangin, Tondo, Manila. She leased it to respondent Alfredo A. Ronquillo for a
    period of three years with a monthly rental of P5,000. The parties agreed on a 10%
    annual increase in rent for the succeeding two years 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

    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.

    the petitioner referred the matter to the Barangay Chairman’s office but the parties failed
    to arrive at a settlement. The Barangay Chairman then issued a Certificate to File
    Action.6

    the petitioner filed against the respondent an action for Unlawful Detainer. The
    respondent filed his Answer by mail but Before the MeTC could receive it, the petitioner
    filed a Motion for Summary Judgment.7 Acting upon this motion, the MeTC rendered a
    decision in favor of the petitioner.

    The respondent filed a Manifestation to the fact that his Answer was filed on time and
    praying that the decision be set aside. The MeTC denied the prayer and ruled 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 RTC rendered its decision9 setting aside the MeTC decision. The RTC
    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 records of the case will be remanded to MeTC, for it
    to decide the case anew.

    The respondent sought relief from the Court of Appeals through a petition for review.
    The appellate court promulgated a decision, reversing the decision of the RTC and
    ordering the dismissal of the ejectment case. The appellate court ruled 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.
    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 RT. Again, they failed to
    arrive at an amicable settlement prompting the RTC to issue an Order11 remanding the
    case to the MeTC and rendered a second decision in favor of the plaintiff.

    The respondent appealed and 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.

    ISSUE: [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

    HELD: With the parties’ subsequent meeting with the Lupon Chairman or Punong
    Barangay for further conciliation proceedings, the procedural defect was cured.

    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)1 of Republic Act No. 71602 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. there was
    substantial compliance with the law. It is noteworthy that the confrontation before
    the Lupon Chairman or the pangkat is sufficient compliance with the precondition for
    filing the case in court. It is significant that the Barangay Chairman or Punong Barangay
    is herself the Chairman of the Lupon under the Local Government Code.18

    WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The decision and resolution of the Court of
    Appeals are REVERSED and SET ASIDE, and the decision of the Regional Trial Court
    of Manila is AFFIRMED.

    1
    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….

    2
    Otherwise known as the Local Government Code of 1991
    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.

    You might also like