G.R. No. L-63277 - NOVEMBER 1983 - PHILIPPINE JURISPRUDENCE CASE NUMBERCASE TITLE G.R. No. L-63277November 29, 1983 Petra vda. De Borromeo vs. Hon. Julian B. Pogoy, Municipality/City Trial Court of Cebu City, and Atty. Ricardo Reyes G.R. No. L-64809November 29, 1983 Philippine Airlines, Inc. vs. National Labor Relations Commission & Rodolfo Salazar, Antonio and Clemente Basinillo, Jr. A.M. No. 1812-CTJNovember 29, 1983 Stephen L. Monsanto vs. Pompeyo L. Palarca B.M. No. 44November 29, 1983 Eufrosina Yap Tan vs. Nicolas El. Sabandal G.R. No. L-35250November 29, 1983 Minerva C. Guerrero, et al. vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. L-41971November 29, 1983 Zonia Ana T. Solano vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. L-44063November 29, 1983 Victoriano F. Corales vs. Employees' Compensation Commission G.R. No. L-45461November 29, 1983 Ponciano L. Almeda vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. L-50259November 29, 1983 Florentino Salinas vs. Miguel R. Navarro G.R. No. L-51533November 29, 1983 Paz L. Makabali vs. Employees' Compensation Commission G.R. No. L-51813-14November 29, 1983 Romulo Cantimbuhan vs. Nicanor J. Cruz, Jr., G.R. No. L-55160November 29, 1983 Inocentes L. Fernandez vs. Manuel S. Alba G.R. No. L-62023November 29, 1983 G & S Corporationvs. The Honorable Court of Appeals and Integrated Realty Corporation G.R. No. L-57131November 29, 1983 Estelita Gravador vs. Jesus M. Elbinias G.R. No. L-57314November 29, 1983 Teodoro Sanchez vs. Carlos R. Buenviaje G.R. No. L-65004November 29, 1983 Perfecto Del Rosario, Jr., vs. the Hon. Alfredo A. Rosero G.R. No. L-34036November 29, 2023 People of the Philippines vs. Diego Estrada, Juanito Estrada & Luis Estrada G.R. No. L-33243November 29, 1983 Isidro C. Nery vs. Hon. Bernardo Teves G.R. No. L-30965November 29, 1983 G.A Machineries, Inc. vs. Horacio Yaptinchay, Doing Business Under the Name and Style "Hi-way Express" and the Court of Appeals G.R. No. L-27873November 29, 1983 Heirs of Jose Amunategui vs. Director of Forestry G.R. No. L-64013November 28, 1983 Union Glass & Container Corporation vs. Securities and Exchange Commission G. R. No. L-62617-18November 28, 1983 People of the Phils. vs. Leonardo Avarico Colana G.R. No. L-40884November 28, 1983 People of the Philippines vs. Romeo Chavez G.R. No. L-48273November 28, 1983 The People of the Philippines vs. Joaquin Pamintuan, et al. G.R. No. L-63564November 28, 1983 Job Quial vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. L-58630November 26, 1983 San Miguel Corporation vs. National Labor Relations Commission G.R. No. L-23625November 25, 1983 The People of the Philippines vs. Mariano Terrado, et al. G.R. No. L-28255November 25, 1983 People of the Philippines vs. Martin C. Magtira G.R. No. L-28298November 25, 1983 Rosita Santiago De Bautista et al. vs. Victoria De Guzman et al. G.R. No. L-30309November 25, 1983 Clemente Briñas vs. People of the Philippines G.R. No. L-32312November 25, 1983 Aurelio Tiro vs. Honorable Agapito Hontanosas G.R. No. L-32573November 25, 1983 The People of the Philippines vs. Domingo Elefaño, Jr., et al. G.R. No. L-33277November 25, 1983 Jorge C. Pacificar vs. Honorable Court of Appeals G.R. No. L-44412November 25, 1983 The People of the Philippines vs. Jaime Sambangan G.R. No. L-49656November 25, 1983 People of the Philippines vs. Godofredo S. Quintal G.R. No. L-51223November 25, 1983 National Development Company vs. Province of Nueva Ecija G.R. No. L-54242November 25, 1983 Magdalena Estate Inc. V. Rene Nieto G.R. No. L-55436November 25, 1983 Nicasio Borje vs. Sandiganbayan G.R. No. L-55463November 25, 1983 Roberto V. Reyes vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. L-57518November 25, 1983 Lucas Barasi vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. L-60744November 25, 1983 The People of the Philippines vs. George A. Luces G.R. No. L-62032November 25, 1983 People of the Philippines vs. Rafael Dumlao G.R. No. L-62050November 25, 1983 Jose "Pepito" Timoner vs. the People of the Philippines G.R. No. L-62283November 25, 1983 Caridad Cruz Vda. De Sy-Quia vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. L-63318November 25, 1983 Phil. Consumers Foundation, Inc. vs. National Telecommunications Com. G.R. No. L-64207-08November 25, 1983 Construction & Dev't. Corp. of the Philippines vs. Vicente Leogardo, Jr. G.R. Nos. L-62845-46November 25, 1983 National Power Corporation vs. Abelardo M. Dayrit G.R. No. L-47282November 23, 1983 Constancio Abapo vs. Hon. Juan Y. Reyes, et al. G.R. No. L-57091November 23, 1983 Paz S. Baens vs. the Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. L-33822-23November 22, 1983 The People of the Philippines vs. Moises Panganiban G.R. No. L-58011 & L-58012November 18, 1983 Vir-Jen Shipping vs. National Labor Relations Com. G.R. No. L-65366November 9, 1983 Jose B.L. Reyes vs. Ramon Bagatsing The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc. Petra vda. De Borromeo vs. Hon. Julian B. Pogoy, Municipality/City Trial Court of Cebu City, and Atty. Ricardo Reyes Philippine Airlines, Inc. vs. National Labor Relations Commission & Rodolfo Salazar, Antonio and Clemente Basinillo, Jr. Stephen L. Monsanto vs. Pompeyo L. Palarca Eufrosina Yap Tan vs. Nicolas El. Sabandal Minerva C. Guerrero, et al. vs. Court of Appeals Zonia Ana T. Solano vs. Court of Appeals Victoriano F. Corales vs. Employees' Compensation Commission Ponciano L. Almeda vs. Court of Appeals Florentino Salinas vs. Miguel R. Navarro Paz L. Makabali vs. Employees' Compensation Commission Romulo Cantimbuhan vs. Nicanor J. Cruz, Jr., Inocentes L. Fernandez vs. Manuel S. Alba G & S Corporationvs. The Honorable Court of Appeals and Integrated Realty Corporation Estelita Gravador vs. Jesus M. Elbinias Teodoro Sanchez vs. Carlos R. Buenviaje Perfecto Del Rosario, Jr., vs. the Hon. Alfredo A. Rosero People of the Philippines vs. Diego Estrada, Juanito Estrada & Luis Estrada Isidro C. Nery vs. Hon. Bernardo Teves G.A Machineries, Inc. vs. Horacio Yaptinchay, Doing Business Under the Name and Style "Hi-way Express" and the Court of Appeals Heirs of Jose Amunategui vs. Director of Forestry Union Glass & Container Corporation vs. Securities and Exchange Commission People of the Phils. vs. Leonardo Avarico Colana People of the Philippines vs. Romeo Chavez The People of the Philippines vs. Joaquin Pamintuan, et al. Job Quial vs. Court of Appeals San Miguel Corporation vs. National Labor Relations Commission The People of the Philippines vs. Mariano Terrado, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Martin C. Magtira Rosita Santiago De Bautista et al. vs. Victoria De Guzman et al. Clemente Briñas vs. People of the Philippines Aurelio Tiro vs. Honorable Agapito Hontanosas The People of the Philippines vs. Domingo Elefaño, Jr., et al. Jorge C. Pacificar vs. Honorable Court of Appeals The People of the Philippines vs. Jaime Sambangan People of the Philippines vs. Godofredo S. Quintal National Development Company vs. Province of Nueva Ecija Magdalena Estate Inc. V. Rene Nieto Nicasio Borje vs. Sandiganbayan Roberto V. Reyes vs. Court of Appeals Lucas Barasi vs. Court of Appeals The People of the Philippines vs. George A. Luces People of the Philippines vs. Rafael Dumlao Jose "Pepito" Timoner vs. the People of the Philippines Caridad Cruz Vda. De Sy-Quia vs. Court of Appeals Phil. Consumers Foundation, Inc. vs. National Telecommunications Com. Construction & Dev't. Corp. of the Philippines vs. Vicente Leogardo, Jr. National Power Corporation vs. Abelardo M. Dayrit Constancio Abapo vs. Hon. Juan Y. Reyes, et al. Paz S. Baens vs. the Court of Appeals, et al. The People of the Philippines vs. Moises Panganiban Vir-Jen Shipping vs. National Labor Relations Com. Jose B.L. Reyes vs. Ramon Bagatsing The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc.
Manila
SECOND DIVISION
[ G.R. No. L-63277, November 29, 1983 ]
PETRA VDA. DE BORROMEO, Petitioner, v. HON. JULIAN B. POGOY, Municipality/City Trial Court of Cebu City, and ATTY. RICARDO REYES, Respondents.
Antonio T. Uy for Petitioner.
Numeriano G. Estenzo for Respondents.
D E C I S I O N
ESCOLIN,J.:
Petitioner herein seeks to stop respondent Judge Julian B. Pogoy of the Municipal Trial Court of Cebu City from taking cognizance of an ejectment suit for failure of the plaintiff to refer the dispute to the Barangay Lupon for conciliation.
The intestate estate of the late Vito Borromeo is the owner of a building bearing the deceased’s name, located at F. Ramos St., Cebu City. Said building has been leased and occupied by petitioner Petra Vda. de Borromeo at a monthly rental of P500.00 payable in advance within the first five days of the month.
On August 28, 1982, private respondent Atty. Ricardo Reyes, administrator of the estate and a resident of Cebu City, served upon petitioner 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 petitioner failed to do so, Atty. Reyes instituted on September 16, 1982 an ejectment case against the former in the Municipal Trial Court of Cebu City. The complaint was docketed as Civil Case No. R-23915 and assigned to the sala of respondent judge.
On November 12, 1982, petitioner moved to dismiss the case, advancing, among others, the want of jurisdiction of the trial court. Pointing out that the parties are residents of the same city, as alleged in the complaint, petitioner contended that the court could not exercise jurisdiction over the case for failure of respondent Atty. Reyes to refer the dispute to the Barangay Court, as required by PD No. 1508, otherwise known as Katarungang Pambarangay Law.
Respondent judge denied the motion to dismiss. He justified the order in this wise:
The Clerk of Court when this case was filed accepted for filing same. That from the acceptance from (sic) filing, with the plaintiff having paid the docket fee to show that the case was docketed in the civil division of this court could be considered as meeting the requirement or precondition for were it not so, the Clerk of Court would not have accepted the filing of the case especially that there is a standing circular from the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court without even mentioning the Letter of Instruction of the President of the Philippines that civil cases and criminal cases with certain exceptions must not be filed without passing the barangay court. (Order dated December 14, 1982, Annex "c", P. 13, Rollo).
Unable to secure a reconsideration of said order, petitioner came to this Court through this petition forcertiorari.In both his comment and memorandum, private respondent admitted not having availed himself of the barangay conciliation process, but justified such omission by citing paragraph 4, section 6 of PD 1508 which allows the direct filing of an action in court where the same may otherwise be barred by the Statute of Limitations, as applying to the case at bar.
The excuse advanced by private respondent is unsatisfactory. Under Article 1147 of the Civil Code, the period for filing actions for forcible entry and detainer is one year,
In the case at bar, the letter-demand was dated August 28, 1982, while the complaint for ejectment was filed in court on September 16, 1982. Between these two dates, less than a month had elapsed, thereby leaving at least eleven (11) full months of the prescriptive period provided for in Article 1147 of the Civil Code. Under the procedure outlined in Section 4 of PD 1508,
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. For this reason, Circular No. 22 addressed to "ALL JUDGES OF THE COURTS OF FIRST INSTANCE, CIRCUIT CRIMINAL COURTS, JUVENILE AND DOMESTIC RELATIONS COURT, COURTS OF AGRARIAN RELATIONS, CITY COURTS, MUNICIPAL COURTS AND THEIR CLERKS OF COURT" was issued by Chief Justice Enrique M. Fernando on November 9, 1979. Said Circular reads:
Effective upon your receipt of the certification by the Minister of Local Government and Community Development that all the barangays within your respective jurisdictions have organized their Lupons provided for in Presidential Decree No. 1508, otherwise known as the Katarungang Pambarangay Law, in implementation of the barangay system of settlement of disputes, you are hereby directed to desist from receiving complaints, petitions, actions or proceedings in cases falling within the authority of said Lupons.
While respondent acknowledged said Circular in his order of December 14, 1982, he nevertheless chose to overlook the failure of the complaint in Civil Case No. R-23915 to allege compliance with the requirement of PD 1508. Neither did he cite any circumstance as would place the suit outside the operation of said law. Instead, he insisted on relying upon the pro tanto presumption of regularity in the performance by the clerk of court of his official duty, which to Our mind has been sufficiently overcome by the disclosure by the Clerk of Court that there was no certification to file action from the Lupon or Pangkat secretary attached to the complaint.
Be that as it may, the instant petition should be dismissed. Under Section 4(a) of PD No. 1508, referral of a dispute to the Barangay Lupon is required only where the parties thereto are "individuals." An "individual" means "a single human being as contrasted with a social group or institution."
In Civil Case No. R-23915, plaintiff Ricardo Reyes is a mere nominal party who is suing in behalf of the Intestate Estate of Vito Borromeo. While it is true that Section 3, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court allows the administrator of an estate to sue or be sued without joining the party for whose benefit the action is presented or defended, it is indisputable that the real party in interest in Civil Case No. R-23915 is the intestate estate under administration. Since the said estate is a juridical person
ACCORDINGLY,the petition is hereby dismissed. Respondent judge is ordered to try and decide Civil Case No. R-23915 without unnecessary delay.ℒαwρhi৷No costs.
SO ORDERED.
Makasiar (Chairman), Concepcion, Jr., Guerrero, Abad Santos and De Castro, JJ., concur.
Aquino J., concurs in the result.
Footnotes
a) Who may initiate proceedings. — Any individual who has a cause of action against another individual involving any matter within the authority of the Lupon as provided in Section 2 may complain orally or in writing, to the Barangay Captain of the barangay referred to in Section 3 hereof.
b) Mediation by Barangay Captain. — Upon receipt of the complaint, the Barangay Captain shall within the next working day summon the respondent/s, with notice to the complainant/s for them and their witnesses to appear before him for a mediation of their conflicting interests. If he fails in his effort within fifteen (15) days from the first meeting of the parties before him, he shall forthwith set a date for the constitution of the Pangkat in accordance with the provisions of Section 1 of this Decree.
c) Hearing before the Pangkat. — The Pangkat shall convene no later than three (3) days from its constitution on the day and hour set by the Barangay Captain, to hear both parties and their witnesses, simplify issues and explore all possibilities for amicable settlement. . . .
x x x
e) Time limit. — The Pangkat shall arrive at a settlement/resolution of the dispute within fifteen (15) days from the day it convenes in accordance with paragraph (c) hereof. This period, shall at the discretion of the Pangkat, be extendible for another period which shall not exceed fifteen (15) days except in clearly meritorious cases."