Sei sulla pagina 1di 2

UNLAWFUL DETAINER

Lumbuan v. Ronquillo

489 SCRA 650

Facts:

Petitioner Milagros G. Lumbuan is the registered owner of a lot in Gagalangin, Tondo,


Manila. On February 20, 1995, she leased it to respondent Alfredo A. Ronquillo for a
period of three years. They agreed that 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. 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.

Petitioner filed against the respondent an action for Unlawful Detainer. Before the
MeTC could receive the respondent’s Answer, the petitioner filed a Motion for Summary
Judgment. Acting upon this motion, the MeTC rendered a decision asking respondent
to vacate the premises. Upon elevation, 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 of Manila for it to decide the case anew.
On petition for review with the CA, it 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.

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

Held/Ratio: YES. CA erred and it should proceed with the appeal.

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.

Potrebbero piacerti anche