Uy v.

Contreras237 SCRA 167

Facts:
Petitioner Felicidad Uy subleased from
respondent Susanna Atayde the other
half of thesecond floor of a building.
She operated therein a beauty parlor.
The
sublease
contractexpired;
however, the petitioner was not able
to remove all her personal properties.
An argument arose between the
petitioner and Atayde when the former
sought to withdraw from the premises
her
remaining
properties.
The
argument degenerated intoa scuffle
between the petitioner, on the one
hand,and Atayde and several of
Ataydes employees, including private
respondent Winnie Javier. Respondent
had themselves medically examined
for the alleged injuries inflicted on
them by the petitioner. Respondents
filed a complaint with the Barangay.
The confrontation of the parties was
scheduled by the Barangay, only
petitioner appeared. The Barangay
then reset the confrontation. The
office of provincial prosecutor filed two
informations for slight physical injuries
against the petitioner with MTC.
Respondent MTC Judge ordered the
petitioner to submit her counteraffidavit and those of her witnesses.
Petitioner submitted and specifically
alleged the prematurity of filing of the
case for failure to undergo conciliation
proceedings. Petitioner filed a motion
to
dismiss.
Respondent
Judge
Contreras denied the motion.Same as
the MR. Petition filed a special civil
action for certiorari in the SC.

Issue:
Whether respondent Judge Contreras
abused his discretion.

Held:
Yes.In the proceedings before the
court, petitioner and respondent had
in mind only PD1508. None knew of
the repeal of the decree by the Local
Government Code of 1991.The Office
of the Provincial Prosecutor should
have exerted enough diligence to

inquire from respondents if prior

referral to the lupon was necessary.
Respondent Judge did not do any
better. His total unawareness of the
Local Government Code of 1991 is
disturbing.

Ledesma v. Court of Appeals211

SCRA 753
Facts:
Petitioner Cecilia U. Ledesma is the
owner-lessor of an apartment building.
Two unitswere leased (now unlawfully
occupied) by respondent Jose T.
Dizon.Said
lease
was
originally
covered by written contracts and
except for the rates andduration, the
terms and conditions of said contracts
were impliedly renewed on a
month to month basis. One of the
terms of the lease, that of monthly
payments, was
violated by respondent.Upon failure of
respondent to honor the demand
letters,
petitioner
referred
the
matterto the Barangay for conciliation
which eventually issued a certification
to file action.Petitioner was assisted by
her son, Raymond U. Ledesma (who is
not a lawyer) duringthe Barangay
proceeding as she was suffering from
recurring psychological ailments ascan
be seen from prescription and receipts
by her psychiatrist.Due to the
stubborn refusal of the respondent to
vacate
the
premises,
petitioner
wasconstrained to retain the services
of a lawyer to initiate the ejectment
proceeding.MTC ordered respondent to
vacate.
RTC
affirmed
the
MTC.Respondent however found favor
in the CA because of lack of cause of
action. CA heldthat petitioner failed
compliance with Sections 6 and 9 of
PD 1508.Petitioner submits that said
issue, not having been raised by
respondent in the courtbelow cannot
be raised for the first time on appeal.

Issue:
Whether there is non-compliance with
Sections 6 and 9 of PD 1508.

Held:
When respondent stated that he was
never summoned or subpoenaed by
the Barangay,he, in effect, was stating
that since he was never summoned,
he could not appear inperson for the
needed confrontation and/or amicable
settlement. Without themandatory
confrontation, no complaint could be
filed
with
the
MTC.
Moreover,
petitioner tries to show that her failure
to appear before the Barangay
wasbecause
of
her
recurring
psychological ailments. But for the
entire year of 1998, there isno
indication at all that petitioner went to
see
her
psychiatrist.
The
only
conclusion isthat 1998 was a lucid
interval. There was therefore no
excuse then for her non-appearance.
Therefore, she cannot be represented
by counsel or by attorney-in-fact whois
next of kin.Her non compliance with
PD 1508 legally barred her from
pursuing case in the MT

Candido v. Macapagal, 221 SCRA

328 (1993)

Petition for certiorari of the orders of

Judge Macapagal RTC18 Malolos.
FACTS: RTC judge dismissed the
complaint of petitioners Emiliana and
Francisca
Candido
againstprivate
respondent Mila Contreras on the
ground of lack of jurisdiction for

petitioners failure to complywith the

mandatory bgy conciliation process
required by PD1508. Petitioners are
the only legitimatechildren of Agapito
Candido
and
Florencia
Santos.
However, Agapito eventually left his
legitimate
familyand
lived
with
Sagraria Lozada until his death.
Sagraria,Jorge, Virginia, Maximina, and
Eduardo who represented themselves
to
be
the
sole
heirs
of
Agapitoexecuted a Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate with Sale
covering parcels of land owned by
thelatter
and
sold
to
private
respondent
Contreras.
Petitioners
instituted an action with the RTC to
annul
theDeed
of
Extra-judicial
Settlement of Estate with Sale. Private
respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss
ongrounds that petitioners failed to
comply
with
mandatory
bgy
conciliation.
RTC
approved
the
MtD.Petitioners filed a MfR which was
denied. (Note: other defendants of the
civil
case
reside
in
differentmunicipalities and cities.)

HELD: The barangay court or Lupon

has jurisdiction over disputes between
parties who are actualresidents of
barangays located in the same city or
municipality or adjoining barangays of
different cities or municipalities.
Where some of the other codefendants reside in barangays of
municipalities,
cities
andprovinces
different with that of the complainant,
compulsory
conciliation
is
not
required. The action maybe filed
directly in court.