Vda. de Borromeo vs. Pogoy (GR L-63277, 29 November 1983)

Vda. de Borromeo vs. Pogoy
GR L-63277, 29 November 1983
Second Division
Escolin (J)

Facts: The intestate estate of the late Vito Borromeo is the owner of a building bearing the deceased’s name. Said building has been leased and occupied by Petra Vda. de Borromeo. On 28 August 1982, Atty. Ricardo Reyes, administrator of the estate and a resident of Cebu City, served upon Vda. de Borromeo a letter demanding that she pay the overdue rentals corresponding to the period from March to September 1982, and thereafter to vacate the premises.

As Vda. de Borromeo failed to do so, Atty. Reyes instituted on 16 September 1982 an ejectment case against the former in the Municipal Trial Court of Cebu City (Civil Case R-23915, assigned to the sala of Judge Julian B. Pogoy). On 12 November 1982, Vda. de Borromeo moved to dismiss the case, advancing, among others, the want of jurisdiction of the trial court on the ground of Atty. Reyes’ failure to refer the dispute to the Barangay Court, as required by PD 1508 (Katarungang Pambarangay Law). The judge denied the motion to dismiss. Unable to secure a reconsideration of said order, Vda. de Borromeo brought the case to the Supreme Court through a petition for certiorari.

Issue: Whether Barangay Conciliation is required in the present case before the lower court can exercise jurisdiction over the case.

Held: With certain exceptions, PD 1508 makes the conciliation process at the Barangay level a condition precedent for filing of actions in those instances where said law applies. Under Section 4(a) of PD 1508, referral of a dispute to the Barangay Lupon is required only where the parties thereto are “individuals”. The law applies only to cases involving natural persons, and not where any of the parties is a juridical person such as a corporation, partnership, corporation sole, testate or intestate, estate, etc. Herein, Atty. Ricardo Reyes is a mere nominal party who is suing in behalf of the Intestate Estate of Vito Borromeo, as the the real party in interest in the case is the intestate estate under administration. Since the said estate is a juridical person, the administrator may file the complaint directly in court, without the same being coursed to the Barangay Lupon for arbitration.

Comments (required in assignment): PD 1508 has been superceded by pertinent provisions of the Local Government Code of 1991 (RA 7160). Section 410 of said Code provides that “Upon payment of the appropriate filing fee, any individual who has a cause of action against another individual involving any matter within the authority of the lupon may complain, orally or in writing, to the lupon chairman of the barangay.” The doctrine enunciated in the case (as to “individuals”) appears to apply even with the enactment of RA 7160.

To note, similar to defenses raised in the case using PD 1508, Section 412 of RA 7160 provides that “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 or unless the settlement has been repudiated by the parties thereto. The parties may go directly to court in the following instances: (1) Where the accused is under detention; (2) Where a person has otherwise been deprived of personal liberty calling for habeas corpus proceedings; (3) Where actions are coupled with provisional remedies such as preliminary injunction, attachment, delivery of personal property and support pendente lite; and (4) Where the action may otherwise be barred by the statute of limitations.”

	This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 License.