Cases - Introduction

CITY OF MANILA VS. JUDGE CUERDO Consistent with the above pronouncement, the Court has held as early as the case
of J.M. Tuason & Co., Inc. v. Jaramillo, et al. [118 Phil. 1022 (1963)] that “if a case
FACTS: may be appealed to a particular court or judicial tribunal or body, then said court or
judicial tribunal or body has jurisdiction to issue the extraordinary writ of certiorari,
City of Manila through its treasurer Liberty Toledo assessed taxes from Jan. to Dec. in aid of its appellate jurisdiction.” This principle was affirmed in De Jesus v. Court
2002 against private respondent SM Mart Inc. et al. of Appeals (G.R. No. 101630, August 24, 1992) where the Court stated that “a court
may issue a writ of certiorari in aid of its appellate jurisdiction if said court has
On Jan. 24, 2004, respondents filed with the RTC the complaint “Refund or Recovery jurisdiction to review, by appeal or writ of error, the final orders or decisions of the
of Illegally and/or Erroneously Collected Local Business tax, Prohibition with prayer lower court.
to issue TRO and writ of preliminary injunction” before Grecia’s sala. Private
respondents even amended the complaint alleging that, in relation to Sec. 14-21 of MEDICAL PLAZA MAKATI CONDOMINIUM VS CULLEN
Revised Revenue Code of Manila were violative of double taxation.
https://www.scribd.com/document/346557023/Medical-Plaza-Makati-Condo-v-
RTC granted the injunction of the respondents, then the petitioners filed Motion for Cullen-Digest
Reconsideration but the RTC denied it.
#12 THIRD DIVISION G.R. No. 181416 November 11, 2013 MEDICAL PLAZA MAKATI
Petitioners then filed a Special Civil Action for certiorari under Rule 65 of Rules of CONDOMINIUM CORPORATION, Petitioner, vs. ROBERT H. CULLEN, Respondent.
Court
PONENTE: PERALTA, J.
CA dismissed the petition holding that it has no jurisdiction over the petition, saying Facts: Respondent (Cullen) purchased from Meridien Land Holding, Inc. (MLHI)
that the jurisdiction is vested on the Court of Tax Appeals.
condominium Unit No. 1201 of the petitioner. Old title was later cancelled and new
ISSUE: title (CCT 64218) was issued in respondent’s name. On 19 September 2002,
petitioner (MPMCC) demanded from Cullen payment for unpaid association dues
Whether or not Court of Tax Appeals has jurisdiction over the Special Civil Action for and assessments claiming a carry-over of MLHI. Cullen refused claiming they are
certiorari assailing an interlocutory order issued by the RTC in a local tax case. being religiously paid. Consequently, Cullen was prevented from exercising his right
to vote and be voted during election of MPMCC’s BOD. When MLHI clarified that his
RULING:
dues had already been settled and upon MPMCC’s failure to explain why is such, he
filed a Complaint for Damages against MPMCC in RTC Makati, acting as a regular
The Supreme Court agrees with the ruling of the CA. Since the appellate jurisdiction
for tax refund is vested in the CTA. Petition for Certiorari seeking nullification of an court. MPMCC and MLHI moved to dismiss mainly on the ground of lack of
interlocutory order issued in the case should be likewise be filed in CTA. To rule jurisdiction. On 9 September 2009, the RTC dismissed the complaint on the ground
otherwise would lead to an absurd situation where 2 courts decides on the same that the action falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of HLURB and that the issues
case. raised are intra-corporate between the corporation and member. On appeal, the CA
reversed RTC decision holding that the controversy is an ordinary civil action for
In order for any appellate court to effectively exercise its appellate jurisdiction, it
damages within the jurisdiction of regular courts. When motions for
must have the authority to issue, among others, a writ of certiorari. In transferring
exclusive jurisdiction over appealed tax cases to the CTA, it can reasonably be reconsideration was denied, petitioners filed the present petition for review on
assumed that the law intended to transfer also such power as is deemed necessary, certiorari under Rule 45.
if not indispensable, in aid of such appellate jurisdiction. There is no perceivable
reason why the transfer should only be considered as partial, not total. Issues: 1. Whether or not the controversy is an intra-corporate, not an ordinary
action. 2. Whether or not RTC acting as a special commercial court, not RTC acting
as a regular court, and not HLURB, has jurisdiction over the subject matter.
Cases - Introduction
Ruling: YES. Petition is Granted. CA Decision is Reversed. It is a settled rule that between the parties, and the questions involved pertain to their rights and
jurisdiction over the subject matter is determined by the allegations in the obligations under the Corporation Code and matters relating to the regulation of
complaint. It is not affected by the pleas or the theories set up by the defendant in the corporation.26 Admittedly, petitioner is a condominium corporation duly
an answer or a motion to dismiss. Otherwise, jurisdiction would become dependent organized and existing under Philippine laws, charged with the management of the
almost entirely upon the whims of the defendant.18 Also illuminating is the Court’s Medical Plaza Makati. Respondent, on the other hand, is the registered owner of
pronouncement in Go v. Distinction Properties Development and Construction, Unit No. 1201 and is thus a stockholder/member of the condominium corporation.
Inc.:19 Basic as a hornbook principle is that jurisdiction over the subject matter of a Clearly, there is an intra-corporate relationship between the corporation and a
case is conferred by law and determined by the allegations in the complaint which stockholder/member. The nature of the action is determined by the body rather
comprise a concise statement of the ultimate facts constituting the plaintiff’s cause than the title of the complaint. Though denominated as an action for damages, an
of action. The nature of an action, as well as which court or body has jurisdiction examination of the allegations made by respondent in his complaint shows that the
over it, is determined based on the allegations contained in the complaint of the case principally dwells on the propriety of the assessment made by petitioner
plaintiff, irrespective of whether or not the plaintiff is entitled to recover upon all or against respondent as well as the validity of petitioner’s act in preventing
some of the claims asserted therein. The averments in the complaint and the respondent from participating in the election of the corporation’s Board of
character of the relief sought are the ones to be consulted. Once vested by the Directors. Respondent contested the alleged unpaid dues and assessments
allegations in the complaint, jurisdiction also remains vested irrespective of demanded by petitioner. The issue is not novel. The nature of an action involving
whether or not the plaintiff is entitled to recover upon all or some of the claims any dispute as to the validity of the assessment of association dues has been settled
asserted therein. x x x 20 Based on the allegations made by respondent in his by the Court in Chateau de Baie Condominium Corporation v. Moreno.27 In that
complaint, does the controversy involve intra-corporate issues as would fall within case, respondents therein filed a complaint for intra-corporate dispute against the
the jurisdiction of the RTC sitting as a special commercial court or an ordinary action petitioner therein to question how it calculated the dues assessed against them,
for damages within the jurisdiction of regular courts? In determining whether a and to ask an accounting of association dues. Petitioner, however, moved for the
dispute constitutes an intra-corporate controversy, the Court uses two tests, dismissal of the case on the ground of lack of jurisdiction alleging that since the
namely, the relationship test and the nature of the controversy test.21 An intra- complaint was against the owner/developer of a condominium whose
corporate controversy is one which pertains to any of the following relationships: condominium project was registered with and licensed by the HLURB, the latter has
(1) between the corporation, partnership or association and the public; (2) between the exclusive jurisdiction. In sustaining the denial of the motion to dismiss, the
the corporation, partnership or association and the State insofar as its franchise, Court held that the dispute as to the validity of the assessments is purely an intra-
permit or license to operate is concerned; (3) between the corporation, partnership corporate matter between petitioner and respondent and is thus within the
or association and its stockholders, partners, members or officers; and (4) among exclusive jurisdiction of the RTC sitting as a special commercial court. More so in
the stockholders, partners or associates themselves.22 Thus, under the relationship this case as respondent repeatedly questioned his characterization as a delinquent
test, the existence of any of the above intra-corporate relations makes the case member and, consequently, petitioner’s decision to bar him from exercising his
intra-corporate.23 Under the nature of the controversy test, "the controversy must rights to vote and be voted for. These issues are clearly corporate and the demand
not only be rooted in the existence of an intra-corporate relationship, but must as for damages is just incidental. Being corporate in nature, the issues should be
well pertain to the enforcement of the parties’ correlative rights and obligations threshed out before the RTC sitting as a special commercial court. The issues on
under the Corporation Code and the internal and intra-corporate regulatory rules of damages can still be resolved in the same special commercial court just like a
the corporation."24 In other words, jurisdiction should be determined by regular RTC which is still competent to tackle civil law issues incidental to intra-
considering both the relationship of the parties as well as the nature of the question corporate disputes filed before it.28 Moreover, Presidential Decree No. 902-A
involved.25 Applying the two tests, we find and so hold that the case involves intra- enumerates the cases over which the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)
corporate controversy. It obviously arose from the intra-corporate relations exercises exclusive jurisdiction: x x x x b) Controversies arising out of intra-corporate
Cases - Introduction
or partnership relations, between and among stockholders, members or associates; here because it might just create a red herring into the entire thing and it will just
between any or all of them and the corporation, partnership or association of which complicate matters, hindi ba? THE CHAIRMAN (SEN. ZUBIRI). I also agree with you
they are stockholders, members, or associates, respectively; and between such although I sympathize with them---although we sympathize with them and we feel
corporation, partnership or association and the State insofar as it concerns their that many times their rights have been also violated by abusive condominium
individual franchise or right to exist as such entity; and c) Controversies in the corporations. However, there are certain things that we have to reconcile. There
election or appointment of directors, trustees, officers, or managers of such are certain issues that we have to reconcile with this version. In the Condominium
corporations, partnerships, or associations.29 To be sure, this action partakes of the Code, for example, they just raised a very peculiar situation under the
nature of an intra-corporate controversy, the jurisdiction over which pertains to the Condominium Code --- Condominium Corporation Act. It’s five years the proxy,
SEC. Pursuant to Section 5.2 of Republic Act No. 8799, otherwise known as the whereas here, it’s three years. So there would already be violation or there will be
Securities Regulation Code, the jurisdiction of the SEC over all cases enumerated already a problem with their version and our version. Sino ang matutupad doon?
under Section 5 of Presidential Decree No. 902-A has been transferred to RTCs Will it be our version or their version? So I agree that has to be studied further. And
designated by this Court as Special Commercial Courts.30 While the CA may be because they have a law pertaining to the condominium housing units, I personally
correct that the RTC has jurisdiction, the case should have been filed not with the feel that it would complicate matters if we include them. Although I agree that they
regular court but with the branch of the RTC designated as a special commercial should be looked after and their problems be looked into. Probably we can ask our
court. Considering that the RTC of Makati City, Branch 58 was not designated as a staff, Your Honor, to come up already with the bill although we have no more time.
special commercial court, it was not vested with jurisdiction over cases previously Hopefully we can tackle this again on the 15th Congress. But I agree with the
cognizable by the SEC.31The CA, therefore, gravely erred in remanding the case to sentiments and the inputs of the Honorable Chair of the House panel. May we ask
the RTC for further proceedings. Indeed, Republic Act (RA) No. 9904, or the Magna our resource persons to also probably give comments? Atty. Dayrit. MR. DAYRIT.
Carta for Homeowners and Homeowners’ Associations, approved on January 7, Yes I agree with you. There are many, I think, practices in their provisions in the
2010 and became effective on July 10, 2010, empowers the HLURB to hear and Condominium Law that may be conflicting with this version of ours. For instance, in
decide inter-association and/or intra-association controversies or conflicts the case of, let’s say, the condominium, the so-called common areas and/or maybe
concerning homeowners’ associations. However, we cannot apply the same in the so called open spaces that they may have, especially common areas, they are
present case as it involves a controversy between a condominium unit owner and a usually owned by the condominium corporation. Unlike a subdivision where the
condominium corporation. While the term association as defined in the law covers open spaces and/or the common areas are not necessarily owned by the
homeowners’ associations of other residential real property which is broad enough association. Because sometimes --- generally these are donated to the municipality
to cover a condominium corporation, it does not seem to be the legislative intent. A or to the city. And it is only when the city or municipality gives the approval or the
thorough review of the deliberations of the bicameral conference committee would conformity that this is donated to the homeowners’ association. But generally,
show that the lawmakers did not intend to extend the coverage of the law to such under PD [Presidential Decree] 957, it’s donated. In the Condominium Corporation,
kind of association. We quote hereunder the pertinent portion of the Bicameral hindi. Lahat ng mga open spaces and common areas like corridors, the function
Conference Committee’s deliberation, to wit: THE CHAIRMAN (SEN. ZUBIRI). Let’s rooms and everything, are owned by the corporation. So that’s one main issue that
go back, Mr. Chair, very quickly on homeowners. THE ACTING CHAIRMAN (REP. can be conflicting. THE CHAIRMAN (SEN. ZUBIRI). I’ll just ask for a one-minute
ZIALCITA). Ang sa akin lang, I think our views are similar, Your Honor, Senator Zubiri, suspension so we can talk. THE ACTING CHAIRMAN (REP. ZIALCITA). Unless you
the entry of the condominium units might just complicate the whole matters. So want to put a catchall phrase like what we did in the Senior Citizen’s Act. Something
we’d like to put it on record that we’re very much concerned about the plight of the like, to the extent --- paano ba iyon? To the extent that it is practicable and
Condominium Unit Homeowners’ Association. But this could very well be addressed applicable, the rights and benefits of the homeowners, are hereby extended to the -
on a separate bill that I’m willing to co-sponsor with the distinguished Senator -- mayroon kaming ginamit na phrase eh...to the extent that it be practicable and
Zubiri, to address in the Condominium Act of the Philippines, rather than address it applicable to the unit homeoweners, is hereby extended, something like that. It’s a
Cases - Introduction
catchall phrase. But then again, it might create a... MR. JALANDONI. It will become laid down by the Court in Chateau de Baie Condominium Corporation v. Moreno35
complicated. There will be a lot of conflict of laws between the two laws. THE which in turn cited Wack Wack Condominium Corporation, et al v. CA36 is still a
ACTING CHAIRMAN (REP. ZIALCITA). Kaya nga eh. At saka, I don’t know. I think the -- good law. WHEREFORE, we hereby GRANT the petition and REVERSE the Court of
- mayroon naman silang protection sa ano eh, di ba? Buyers decree doon sa Appeals Decision. XXX The Complaint before the Regional Trial Court of Makati City,
Condominium Act. I’m sure there are provisions there eh. Huwag na lang, huwag na Branch 58, which is not a special commercial court, XXX is ordered DISMISSED for
lang. MR. JALANDONI. Mr. Chairman, I think it would be best if your previous lack of jurisdiction. Let the case be REMANDED to the Executive Judge of the RTC
comments that you’d be supporting an amendment. I think that would be --- Well, Makati City for re-raffle purposes among the designated special commercial courts.
that would be the best course of action with all due respect. THE ACTING - Digested [18 November 2016, 21:36] * * *
CHAIRMAN (REP. ZIALCITA). Yeah. Okay. Thank you. So iyon na lang final proposal
naming ‘yung catchall phrase, "With respect to the..."32 x x x x THE CHAIRMAN SANDOVAL VS CANEBA
(SEN. ZUBIRI). xxx And so, what is their final decision on the definition of
https://www.scribd.com/document/338306246/Sandoval-vs-CSC
homeowners? THE ACTING CHAIRMAN (REP. ZIALCITA). We stick to the original, Mr.
Chairman. We’ll just open up a whole can of worms and a whole new ball game will MAGPALE VS CSC
come into play. Besides, I am not authorized, neither are you, by our counterparts
to include the condominium owners. THE CHAIRMAN (SEN. ZUBIRI). Basically that is DE MURGA VS CHAN
correct. We are not authorized by the Senate nor – because we have discussed this
https://www.scribd.com/doc/99998418/Civpro-1-28-Case-Digests
lengthily on the floor, actually, several months on the floor. And we don’t have the
authority as well for other Bicam members to add a provision to include a separate Facts:
entity that has already their legal or their established Republic Act tackling on that
particular issue. But we just like to put on record, we sympathize with the plight of Petitioner as lessor, entered into a contract of lease with respondent as lessee.
our friends in the condominium associations and we will just guarantee them that Before the expiration of the ten-year period of the lease, there had been
we will work on an amendment to the Condominium Corporation Code. So with intercourse of communications between the lessor and the lessee for the renewal
that – we skipped, that is correct, we have to go back to homeowners’ association of the lease, but the parties failed to arrive at an agreement; hence, this action by
definition, Your Honor, because we had skipped it altogether. So just quickly going the lessor against the lessee. A letter of demand to vacate the leased premises was
back to Page 7 because there are amendments to the definition of homeowners. If sent to lessee as follows: “Please be advised further that we reiterate our demand
it is alright with the House Panel, adopt the opening phrase of Subsection 7 of the made to you in our registered letter dated February 4, 1959 (to vacate the leased
Senate version as opening phrase of Subsection 10 of the reconciled version. x x x x premises) which was received by you on the 10th instant, unless you pay the
33 To be sure, RA 4726 or the Condominium Act was enacted to specifically govern amount of Six Hundred pesos (P600.00) or Seven Hundred pesos(P700.00) as new
a condominium. Said law sanctions the creation of the condominium corporation rental per our letter of January 19, 1959, before the expiration of the 15-day period
which is especially formed for the purpose of holding title to the common area, in granted you for vacating the same. ”Without any further definite demand on the
which the holders of separate interests shall automatically be members or lessee to vacate the premises, petitioner filed a complaint of unlawful detainer in
shareholders, to the exclusion of others, in proportion to the appurtenant interest the municipal court of Zamboanga City against the lessee, Juanito Chan, to eject the
of their respective units.34 The rights and obligations of the condominium unit latter from the leased premises. The facts alleged in the complaint as cause of
owners and the condominium corporation are set forth in the above Act. Clearly, action ,consisted in reproducing and reiterating the substance of the
condominium corporations are not covered by the amendment. Thus, the intra- correspondence exchanged between lessor and lessee, as narrated above, and
corporate dispute between petitioner and respondent is still within the jurisdiction claiming that the possession of the lessee of the premises had become illegal by his
of the RTC sitting as a special commercial court and not the HLURB. The doctrine failure and refusal to pay the increased new rental. For relief, the plaintiff prayed
Cases - Introduction
that the defendant be ordered to vacate the premises, and "TO PAY THE NEW statement in said clause "7" that in case of renewal the duration of the lease and
RENTS DEMANDEDOF P600.00 or P700.00 FROM FEBRUARY 1, 1959 MONTHLY AS the new rental to be paid shall be adjusted by the parties, is of no moment in the
THE CASE MAY BE." Attached to the complaint, as annexes thereto, were copies of solution of the issue, whether or not the facts alleged in the complaint constitute a
the letters exchanged between the lessor and the lessee. cause of action of unlawful detainer. The pleadings of the parties, and the annexes
thereto, clearly show that the jugular vein of the controversy hinges on the correct
Issue: interpretation of clause "7" of the contract of lease, a matter outside the
jurisdiction of the municipal court. Inasmuch as the controversy hinges on the
interpretation of clause"7" of the contract, that is, whether or not said clause
contemplated an automatic renewal of the lease, the action was not for unlawful
detainer but one not capable of pecuniary estimation and, therefore, beyond the
Whether or not the allegations in the complaint constitute a cause of action for competence of the municipal court.
unlawful detainer, and confer jurisdiction over the case to the municipal court (now
city court) of ZamboangaCity, under the provisions of Rule 70 of the Rules of Court EDITHA PADLAN VS DINGLASAN
and decisions interpreting the same
https://www.scribd.com/document/249279562/Editha-Padlan-vs-Elenita-
Held: Dinglasan-and-Felicisimo-Dinglasan

The notice giving lessee the alternative either to pay the increased rental or FACTS:
otherwise to vacate the land is not the demand contemplated by the Rules of Court
Respondent Elenita Dinglasan was the registered owner of a parcel of land which is
in unlawful detainer cases. When after such notice, the lessee elects to stay, he
covered by TCT. While on board a jeepney, Elenita’s mother, Lilia, had a
thereby merely assumes the new rental and cannot be ejected until he defaults in
conversation with one Maura Passion regarding the sale of the said property.
said obligation and necessary demand is first made. In the case at bar, it clearly
Believing that Maura was a real estate agent, Lilia borrowed the owner’s copy of
appears from the demand letter that the obligation to vacate the leased premises
the TCT from Elenita and gave it to Maura. Maura then subdivided the property into
would be dependent on the failure of the lessee to agree to the new rent
several lots under the name of Elenita and her husband Felicisimo Dinglasan.
demanded by the lessor. As the lessee, however, was in the physical possession of
Through a falsified deed of sale bearing the forged signature of Elenita and her
the land by virtue of a prior contract of lease, and the demand was in the
husband Felicisimo, Maura was able to sell the lots to different buyers. On April 26,
alternative imposing a new rental, even without taking into account the efficacy of
1990, Maura sold one of the lots to Lorna Ong (Lorna), who later sold the lot to
the stipulation for an automatic renewal of the lease. Without any subsequent
petitioner Editha Padlan for P4,000.00. Thus, TCT issued under the former’s name
definite demand to vacate the premises, subject to no condition, the lessee did not
was cancelled and another TCT was issued in the name of Editha Padlan.
incur in default which would give rise to a right on the part of the lessor to bring an
Respondents filed a case Cancellation of Transfer Certificate of Title before the RTC.
action of unlawful detainer. Clause "7" of the contract of lease, meant an express
Summons was, thereafter, served to petitioner through her mother, Anita Padlan.
grant to the lessee to renew the lease at his option, contrary to the claim of the
The RTC rendered a Decision finding petitioner to be a buyer in good faith and,
lessor-appellee that there must be a prior mutual agreement of the parties. Clause
consequently, dismissed the complaint. Not satisfied, respondents sought recourse
"7" provides the happening of two eventualities at the expiration of the lease—
before the CA. CA rendered a Decision in favor of the respondent. Consequently,
either the lessor may purchase the improvements constructed by the lessee on the
the CA reversed and set aside the Decision of the RTC and ordered th cancellation
land, or in case the lessor fails, for any cause or reason, to exercise the option to
of the TCT issued in the name of Lorna and the petitioner, and the revival of
buy, the lease shall be deemed automatically renewed. The evidence has
respondents’own title. Aggrieved, petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration.
established that the lessor had refused to buy the buildings on the land. The
Cases - Introduction
Petitioner argued that not only did the complaint lacks merit, the lower court failed Secretary of Justice, in dismissing his Petition for Review, acted with grave abuse of
to acquire jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case and the person of the discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.
petitioner.
Issue:
ISSUE: Whether or not the RTC acquired jurisdiction over the subject matter of the Whether or not the filing of the present petition directly with the Supreme Court
constitutes an utter violation of the rule on hierarchy of courts
case

RULING: No. In no uncertain terms, the Court has already held that a complaint Held:
Yes. The Supreme Court is a court of last resort, and must so remain if it is to
must allege the assessed value of the real property subject of the complaint or the
satisfactorily perform the functions assigned to it by the fundamental charter and
interest thereon to determine which court has jurisdiction over the action. In the immemorial tradition. It cannot and should not be burdened with the task of
case at bar, the only basis of valuation of the subject property is the value alleged in dealing with causes in the first instance. Its original jurisdiction to issue the so-called
the complaint that the lot was sold by Lorna to petitioner in the amount of extraordinary writs should be exercised only where absolutely necessary or where
P4,000.00. No tax declaration was even presented that would show the valuation of serious and important reasons exist therefor. Hence, that jurisdiction should
the subject property. In fact, in one of the hearings, respondents’ counsel informed generally be exercised relative to actions or proceedings before the Court of
Appeals, or before constitutional or other tribunals, bodies or agencies whose acts
the court that they will present the tax declaration of the property in the next
for some reason or another are not controllable by the Court ofAppeals. Where the
hearing since they have not yet obtained a copy from the Provincial Assessor’s
issuance of an extraordinary writ is also within the competence of the Court of
Office. However, they did not present such copy. To reiterate, where the ultimate Appeals or a Regional Trial Court, it is in either of these courts that the specific action for the writ’s
objective of the plaintiffs is to obtain title to real property, it should be filed in the procurement must be presented.T he hierarchy of courts is determinative of the
proper court having jurisdiction over the assessed value of the property subject venue of appeals, and should also serve as a general determinant of the
thereof . Since the amount alleged in the Complaint by respondents for the appropriate forum for petitions for the extraordinary writs. It is a policy that
disputed lot is only P4,000.00, the MTC and not the RTC has jurisdiction over the is necessary to prevent inordinate demands upon the Court’s time and attention which are better
devoted to those matters within its exclusive jurisdiction, and to prevent further
action. Therefore, all proceedings in the RTC are null and void.
over-crowding of the Court’s docket.
QUESADA VS DOJ
LUMBUAN VS RONQUILO
https://www.scribd.com/document/383841860/15-Lumbuan-vs-Ronquillo
https://www.scribd.com/document/190382153/Quesada-vs-DOJ
Petitioner Milagros G. Lumbuan is the registered owner of a lot in Gagalangin, Tondo,Manila. On
Facts:
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
Respondent Teruel filed with the Office of the City Prosecutor in Mandaluyong City
business, unless any other use is given, with the petitioner’s
an affidavit-complaint against petitioner, Camacho, Jr., and Corgado with the crime
prior written consent. While the respondent at the start operated a fastfood business, he later used
of estafa under Article 315 (2)and (3) of the Revised Penal Code, which in turn was
the premises as residence without the petitioner’s prior written consent. He also failed to
opposed by petitioner who filed a counter-affidavit thereto. Thereafter, an
pay the 10% annual increase in rent of P500/month starting 1996 andP1,000/month in 1997 to the
Information for estafa was filed with the RTC upon the recommendation ofAssistant
present. Despite repeated verbal and written demands, the respondent refused to pay the arrears and
City Prosecutor Esteban A. Tacla, Jr. after the latter’s issuance of a Resolution
vacate the leased premises. Petitioner filed against the respondent an action for Unlawful
finding probable cause. In the meantime, petitioner filed with the Department of
Detainer. Before the MeTC could receive the respondent’s Answer, the petitioner filed
Justice a Petition for Review challenging the Resolution of the Investigating
a Motion for Summary Judgment. Acting upon this motion, the MeTC rendered a decision asking
Prosecutor, but was however, dismissed. Pending the criminal case at the RTC,
respondent to vacate the premises. Upon elevation, RTC directed the parties to go back to the Lupon
petitioner filed with the Supreme Court a Petition for Certiorari alleging that the
Chairman or Punong Barangay for further proceedings and to comply strictly withthe condition that
should the parties fail to reach an amicable settlement, the entire records of the case will be remanded
Cases - Introduction
to MeTC of Manila for it to decide the case anew. On petition for review with the CA, it ruled that increased rental and persisted in operating a photocopying business in the unit.
when a complaint is prematurely instituted, as when the mandatory mediation and conciliation in the When petitioner applied with MWSS for a water line connection, consent to which
barangay level hadnot been complied with, the court should dismiss the case and not just remand the was declined by respondent for petitioner’s failure to pay the proper rental and
records to the court of origin so that the parties may go through the prerequisite proceedings. violation of lease stipulations. After several barangay conciliation sessions, the
parties failed to settle amicably thus, on 14 Septembe4 1997, the Barangay
Issue: WHETHER THE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN DISMISSINGTHE COMPLAINT FOR THE Chairman certified to File an
ALLEGED FAILURE OF THE PARTIES TO COMPLYWITH THE MANDATORY MEDIATION AND Action. On 2 October 1997, respondents filed with MTC Caloocan a complaint for
CONCILIATION PROCEEDINGS IN THEBARANGAY LEVEL unlawful detainer against petitioners. Petitioners moved to dismiss on the ground
that the alleged barangay certification is defective because it pertains to another
Held/Ratio: YES. CA erred and it should proceed with the appeal. The primordial objective of the dispute, and the Punong Barangay did not constitute the Pangkat ng
Katarungang Pambarangay Rules, is to reduce the number of court litigations and prevent the Tagapagkasundo, in violation of Sec 410(b), Ch 7, Title I, Book III of RA 7160. On 26
deterioration of the quality of justice which has been brought about by the indiscriminate filing of cases August 1998, the MTC rendered a judgment in favor of respondents. On appeal, the
in the courts. To attain this objective, Section 412(a) of Republic Act No. 7160 requires the parties to RTC Caloocan on 15 February 1999 affirmed MTC Judgment. Upon appeal to CA, on
undergo a conciliation process before the Lupon Chairman or the Pangkat as a precondition to filing 12 September 2000, it affirmed RTC decision. A motion for reconsideration was
a complaint in court. Here, the Lupon/Pangkat Chairman and Lupon/Pangkat Secretary signed the denied. Hence, the present petition for review on certiorari.
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 Issue: Whether or not the respondents have sufficiently compliedwith the Barangay
for possible settlement. The effortsof the Barangay Chairman, however, proved futile as no agreement Conciliation requirement as a condition sine quanon prior to filing or institution of
was reached. Although no pangkat actions in court.
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 Ruling: YES. Petition is Denied. CA Decision is Affirmed. The primordial objective of
the pangkat is sufficient compliance with the precondition for filing the case in court. This is Presidential Decree No. 1508 (the Katarungang Pambarangay Law), now included
true notwithstanding the mandate of Section 410(b) ofthe same law that the Barangay Chairman shall under R.A. No. 7160 (the Local Government Code of 1991), is to reduce the number
constitute a pangkat if he fails in his mediation efforts. Section 410(b) should be construed together of court litigations and prevent the deterioration of the quality of justice which has
with Section 412, as well as the circumstances obtaining in and peculiar to the case. been broughtabout by the indiscriminate filing of cases in the courts.[19] To attain
this objective, Section 412(a) of R.A. No. 7160 requires the parties to undergo a
conciliation process before the Lupon Chairman or the Pangkat as a precondition to
PEOPLE VS CAWALING filing a complaint in court, thus:

https://www.scribd.com/document/249871293/People-vs-Cawaling SECTION 412. Conciliation. (a) Pre-condition to Filing of Complaint in Court. No

complaint, petition, action, or proceeding involving any matter within the authority
ZAMORA VS HEIRS OF CARMEN of the lupon shall be filed or instituted directly incourt or any other government
office for adjudication, unless there has been a confrontation between
https://www.scribd.com/document/346560153/Zamora-v-Izquierdo-DIGEST the parties beforethe lupon chairman or the pangkat, and that no conciliation
or settlement has been reached as certified bythe lupon or
pangkat secretary and attested to by the lupon or pangkat chairman x x x.
Facts: (Underscoring supplied)
In 1973, Carmen Izquierdo and Pablo Zamora entered intobcontract of lease In the case at bar, the Punong Barangay, as Chairman ofthe Lupong
verbally whereby the former leased to the blatter one of her apartment units with Tagapamayapa, conducted conciliation proceedings to resolve the dispute
the following stipulations: (1) monthly rental is P3K; (2) for residence purpose only; between the parties herein. Contrary to petitioners contention, the complaint does
and (3) only a single family is allowed to occupy.In 1996 (after death of Carmen), not only allege, as a cause of action, the refusal of respondents attorney-in-fact to
respondents increased the monthly rental from P3K to P3.6K but petitioners give her consent to the installation of waterfacilities in the premises, but also
refused to sign the new contract. Petitioners continued to reside without paying the
Cases - Introduction
petitioners violation of the terms of the lease, specifically their use of a portion jurisdiction over the subject matter, or failure by the complainant to refer the
therein for subject matter of his/her complaint to the Lupon for conciliation prior to its filing
their photocopying business and their failure to pay the increased rental. As with the court. This is clear from the provisions of Section 18 of the same Rule,
correctly found by the RTC: The records show that confrontations before the which reads:
barangay chairmanon January 26, 1997, February 9, 1 997, February 23,
1997,February 28, 1997, July 27, 1997, August 3, 1997, August 10, 1997,August 17, SEC. 18. Referral to Lupon. Cases requiring referral to the Lupon for conciliation
1997 and August 24, 1997 wherein not only the issue of water installation was under the provisions of Presidential Decree No. 1508 where there is no showing of
discussed but also the terms of the lease and the proposed execution of a written compliance with such requirement, shall be dismissed without prejudice, and may
contract relative thereto. It appears, however, that no settlement was reached be revived only after such requirement shall have been complied with. This
despite a total of nine meetings at the barangay level. provision shall not apply to criminal cases where the accused was arrested without
a warrant. (Underscoring supplied) As discussed earlier, the case was referred to
It is of no moment that the complaint was initially made by defendant-appellant the Lupon Chairman for conciliation. Obviously, petitioners motion to dismiss, even
Avelina Zamora because herein plaintiff-appellee was given by the Sangguniang if allowed, is bereft of merit.
Barangay the authority to bring her grievance to the Court for resolution. While it is
true that the Sertifikasyon dated September 14,
1997 is entitled Ukol Sa Hindi Pagbibigay Ng Pahintulot Sa Pagpapakabit Ng Tubig,
this title must not prevail over the actual issues discussed in the proceedings.
Hence, to require another confrontation at the barangay level as a sine qua non for
the filing of the instant case would not serve any useful purpose anymore since no
new issues would be raised therein and the parties have proven so many times in
the past that they cannot get to settle their differences amicably. We cannot
sustain petitioners contention that the Lupon conciliation alone, without the
proceeding before the Pangkat ng Tagapagkasundo, contravenes the law on
Katarungang Pambarangay. Section 412(a) of R.A. No. 7160, quoted earlier, clearly
provides that, as a precondition to filing a complaint in court, the parties shall go
through the conciliation process either before the Lupon Chairman (as
what happened in the present case), orthe Pangkat. Moreover, in Diu vs. Court of
Appeals,[21] we held that notwithstanding the mandate in Section 410(b) of R.A.
No. 7160 that the BarangayChairman shall constitute a Pangkat ifhe fails in his
mediation efforts, the same Section 410(b) should be construed together with
Section 412(a) of the samelaw (quoted earlier), as well as the circumstances
obtaining in and peculiar to the case. Here, while the Pangkat was not constituted,
however, the parties met nine (9) times at the Office of the Barangay Chairman for
conciliation wherein not
only the issue of water installation was discussed but also petitioners violation of
the lease contract. It is thus manifest that there was substantial compliance with
the law which doesnot require strict adherence thereto.

II
We hold that petitioners motion to dismiss the complaint for unlawful detainer is
proscribed by Section 19(a) of the 1991 Revised Rule on Summary Procedure,
quoted earlier. Section 19(a) permits the filing of such pleading only when the
ground for dismissal of the complaint is anchored on lack of