G.R. No.

96914 July 23, 1992

CECILIA U. LEDESMA, petitioner, vs. THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS, and JOSE T.
DIZON, respondents.
Petitioner Cecilia U. Ledesma is the owner-lessor of an apartment building in which two (2) units were
covered by a lease contract to the private respondent Jose T. Dizon. Lessee-respondent allegedly
violated the terms on monthly rental payments and incurred arrears for both units. Demand letters
were sent to the respondent which the latter failed to honor thus the petitioner referred the matter for
barangay conciliation which eventually issued a certification to file action. Thereafter, the petitioner
filed an ejectment complaint against the respondent before the MTC in which the petitioner was
granted a favorable judgment. However on appeal, the CA set aside said judgment for lack of cause
of action for non-compliance with the mandatory requirements of PD 1508.
The respondent avers that he was never summoned or subpoenaed by the Barangay Chairman and
that the certification to file action was improperly issued as there was no personal confrontation
between the parties thereby resulting in non-compliance with the mandatory requirements of Section
6 (Conciliation as pre-condition to file action) and Section 9 (Appearance of parties in person) P.D.
No. 1508.
Petitioner assails private respondent for raising the issue of non-compliance with of P.D. 1508 only in
his petition for review with the appellate court and that her failure to personally appear before the
barangay Chairman was because of her recurring psychological ailments which she supported by
receipts and prescriptions by her psychiatrist.
Issue: WON respondent only raised the issue on non-compliance to PD 1508 for the first time in the
appellate court and WON petitioner can use her recurring psychological ailments as excuse for not
personally appearing in the barangay conciliation proceedings.
Held: NO. When private respondent stated in his Answer to the complaint in the MTC that he was
never summoned or subpoenaed by the Barangay Chairman, he, in effect, was stating that since he
was never summoned, he could not appear in person for the needed confrontation of the parties
before the Lupon Chairman for conciliation and/or amicable settlement. Without the mandatory
personal confrontation, no complaint could be filed with the MTC. Such statements are in substantial
compliance with the raising of said issues and/or objections in the lower court.
Further, Section 9 of P.D. 1508 provides that with the exception that minors and incompetents may be
assisted by their next of kin who are not lawyers, disputing parties must appear in person without the
assistance of counsel/representative in barangay conciliation proceedings.
Petitioner tries to show that her failure to personally appear before the barangay Chairman was
because of her recurring psychological ailments. But for the entire year of 1988, there is no indication
at all that petitioner went to see her psychiatrist for consultation. The only conclusion is that 1988 was
a lucid interval for petitioner. There was, therefore, no excuse then for her non-appearance at the
Lupon Chairman's office.
Petitioner, not having shown that she is incompetent, cannot be represented by counsel or even by
attorney-in-fact who is next of kin. Therefore, Petitioner's non-compliance with Sections 6 and 9 of
P.D. 1508 legally barred her from pursuing the ejectment case.