SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 211 07/10/2018, 11)46 PM

VOL. 211,JULY23,1992 753

Ledesma vs. Court of Appeals
*
G.R. No. 96914. July 23, 1992.

CECILIA U. LEDESMA, petitioner, vs. THE HON. COURT

OF APPEALS, and JOSE T. DIZON, respondents.

Unlawful Detainer; Katarungang Pambarangay; Pleadings and

Practice; Defendant in the ejectment case raised the non-recourse to
the Barangay in his answer.·We do not agree with petitioner that
the issue of non-compliance with Sections 6 and 9 of P.D. 1508 was
raised only for the first time in the Court of Appeals. When private
respondent stated 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.
Private respondentÊs allegation in paragraph 4 of his Answer that
he was never summoned or subpoenaed by the Barangay Chairman;
that plaintiff has no cause of action against him as alleged in
paragraph 7 of the Answer; and that

_________________

*SECOND DIVISION.

754

754 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001664f32e8a7df698456003600fb002c009e/p/APW316/?username=Guest Page 1 of 10
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 211 07/10/2018, 11)46 PM

Ledesma vs. Court of Appeals

the certification to file action was improperly issued in view of the

foregoing allegations thereby resulting in non-compliance with the
mandatory requirements of P.D. No. 1508, as stated in paragraph 8
of the Answer are in substantial compliance with the raising of said
issues and/or objections in the court below.
Same; Same; P.D. 1508 requires the actual, personal appearance
of the parties, not their children.·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___specifically September to December 6·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 ChairmanÊs office.
Same; Same; Legal action is barred when there is non-recourse
to barangay court.·PetitionerÊs non-compliance with Secs. 6 and 9
of P.D. 1508 legally barred her from pursuing the ejectment case in
the MTC of Manila. Having arrived at this conclusion, there is no
need for Us to discuss the other issues involved.

PETITION for review from the decision of the Court of

Appeals.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

Edgar V. Mendoza and Epifania N. Mendoza for
petitioner.
Gaudioso C. de Lunas for private respondent.

NOCON, J.:

Petitioner Cecilia U. Ledesma prays before this Court for

the reversal of the Decision 1
of the respondent Court of
Appeals of August 30, 1990 ordering the dismissal of her
ejectment complaint before the Manila Metropolitan Trial
Court for lack of cause of action due to non-compliance with
Sections 6 and 9 of P.D. 1508 (Katarungang Pambarangay
2
Law) as well as the Resolution of January 7, 1991 denying
petitionerÊs Motion for

________________

http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001664f32e8a7df698456003600fb002c009e/p/APW316/?username=Guest Page 2 of 10
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 211 07/10/2018, 11)46 PM

1Rollo, p. 34.
2Rollo, p. 50.

755

VOL. 211,JULY23,1992 755

Ledesma vs. Court of Appeals

Reconsideration of said Decision.

The facts of this case as summarized by the petitioner in
her Memorandum are as follows:

„Petitioner is the owner-lessor of an apartment building located at

800-802 Remedios Street, Malate, Manila. Two (2) units of said
apartment building were leased (now being unlawfully occupied) to
private respondent at monthly rates of P3,450.00 for the
unit/apartment located at 800 Remedios Street, Malate, Manila and
P2,300.00 for the unit/apartment located at 802 Remedios Street,
Malate, Manila, respectively, x x x.
„Said lease was originally covered by written contracts of lease
both dated December 10, 1984 and except for the rates and
duration, the terms and conditions of said contracts were impliedly
renewed on a Âmonth-to-monthÊ basis pursuant to Article 1670 of the
Civil Code.
„One of the terms and conditions of the said Contract of Lease,
that of monthly rental payments, was violated by private
respondent and that as of October 31, 1988, said private respondent
has incurred arrears for both units in the total sum of P14,039.00
for which letters of demand were sent to, and received by, private
respondent.
„Upon failure of private respondent to honor the demand letters,
petitioner referred the matter to 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)
during the barangay proceeding as she was suffering from recurring
psychological and emotional ailments as can be seen from the
receipts and prescriptions issued by her psychiatrist, copies of
which are attached as Annexes ÂE-E10Ê of the said Petition.
„Due to the stubborn refusal of the private respondent to vacate
the premises, petitioner was constrained to retain the services of
3
counsel to initiate this ejectment proceeding.‰

http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001664f32e8a7df698456003600fb002c009e/p/APW316/?username=Guest Page 3 of 10
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 211 07/10/2018, 11)46 PM

The Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch 10, Manila, rendered

a decision on June 21, 1989 ordering private respondent to
vacate the premises, to pay rentals falling due after May4
1989 and to pay attorneyÊs fees in the amount of P2,500.00.
The Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch IX, on appeal,
affirmed the MTC ruling except for the award of attorneyÊs
fees which it reduced

_________________

3Rollo, p. 115-117.
4Decision of Manila RTC, Br. X, p. 34, Rollo.

756

756 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Ledesma vs. Court of Appeals
5
to P1,000.00.
Private respondent, however, found favor with the
respondent Court of Appeals when he elevated the case in a
Petition for Review, when it ruled, thus:

„IN VIEW WHEREOF, the Decision dated October 13, 1989 of the
RTC of Manila, Br. IX in Civil Case No. 89-49672 is reversed and
set aside and the Complaint for Ejectment against petitioner is
6
dismissed for lack of cause of action. No costs.‰

Thus, this appeal, raising several assignments of error,

namely, that the Court of Appeals erred·

1. In holding that private respondent raised the issue

of noncompliance with Sections 6 and 9 of P.D. 1508
in the lower court when in fact and in truth his
answer and position paper failed to do so, contrary
to evidence on record;
2. In failing to consider that private respondent had
waived his right to question the lack of cause of
action of the complaint, if there is any, contrary to
law, established jurisprudence, and evidence on
record;
3. In giving undue weight and credence to the self-

http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001664f32e8a7df698456003600fb002c009e/p/APW316/?username=Guest Page 4 of 10
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 211 07/10/2018, 11)46 PM

serving allegations of the private respondent that

summons was not served him, contrary to law,
established jurisprudence and evidence on record.
4. In disregarding the well-known principle of law
that barangay authorities are presumed to have
performed their official duties and to have acted
regularly in issuing the certificate to file action and
grossly and manifestly erred in making an opposite
conclusion to this effect, contrary to law, established
jurisprudence and evidence on record.
5. In not holding that the settlement was repudiated,
contrary to law and evidence on record.
6. In not affirming the judgment rendered by the
Metropolitan Trial Court and Regional Trial Court
below.

Petitioner assails private respondent for raising the issue

of

_________________

5Decision of Manila RTC, Br. IX, p. 34, Rollo.

6CA-G.R. SP No. 19704 dated Aug. 30, 1990, penned by Justice
Reynato S. Puno and concurred in by Justice Jorge S. Imperial and
Artemon D. Luna (Rollo, p. 47).

757

VOL. 211,JULY23,1992 757

Ledesma vs. Court of Appeals

non-compliance with Sections 6 and 9 of P.D. 1508 only in

his petition for review with the appellate court and which
mislead the court to erroneously dismiss her complaint for
ejectment.
Section 6 of P.D. 1508 states:

„SEC.6. Conciliation pre-condition to filing of complaint.·No

complaint, petition, action or proceeding involving any matter
within the authority of the Lupon as provided in Section 2 hereof
shall be filed or instituted in court or any other government office

http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001664f32e8a7df698456003600fb002c009e/p/APW316/?username=Guest Page 5 of 10
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 211 07/10/2018, 11)46 PM

for adjudication unless there has been a confrontation of the parties

before the Lupon Chairman or the Pangkat and no conciliation or
settlement has been reached as certified by the Lupon Secretary or
the Pangkat Secretary, attested by the Lupon or Pangkat
Chairman, or unless the settlement has been repudiated. x x x.
„x x x xxx x x x‰

while Section 9 states that:

„SEC.9. Appearance of parties in person.·In all proceedings

provided for herein, the parties must appear in person without the
assistance of counsel/representative, with the exception of minors
and incompetents who may be assisted by their next of kin who are
not lawyers.‰

Petitioner submits that said issue, not having been raised

by private respondent in the court below, cannot be raised
for the first time on appeal, specially 7
in the Court of
Appeals, citing Saludes vs. Pajarillo. Private respondent
had waived said objection, following the line of reasoning in
Royales vs. Intermediate Appellate Court.8
Private respondent denies having waived the defenses of
non-compliance with Sections 6 and 9 of P.D. 1508. His
Answer before the Metropolitan Trial Court, specifically
paragraphs 4, 7 & 8, substantially raised the fact of non-
compliance by petitioner with Sections 6 and 9 of P.D. 1508
and consequently, subjected petitionerÊs complaint to
dismissal for lack of cause of action, to wit:

_________________

744 O.G. 12, pp. 4892, 4894.

8127 SCRA 470, 471, 474.

758

758 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Ledesma vs. Court of Appeals

„x x x x x x x x x
„4. Answering defendant denies the allegations of paragraph 8,
the truth of the matter being that he was not duly summoned nor

http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001664f32e8a7df698456003600fb002c009e/p/APW316/?username=Guest Page 6 of 10
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 211 07/10/2018, 11)46 PM

subpoenaed by the Barangay Chairman, who issued the alluded

9
certification, to appear for hearing.‰
„x x x xxx xxx
„7. Plaintiff has no cause of action against answering defendant.
„8. The certification to file action (annex D of the complaint) was
improperly or irregularly issued as the defendant was never
summoned nor subpoenaed by the Barangay Chairman to appear
for hearing in connection with the alleged complaint of the plaintiff.
In effect the mandatory provision of P.D. 1508 was not complied
with warranting the dismissal of the instant complaint.‰
10
„x x x xxx x x x.

We do not agree with petitioner that the issue of non-

compliance with Sections 6 and 9 of P.D. 1508 was raised
only for the first time in the Court of Appeals. When
private respondent stated 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.
Private respondentÊs allegation in paragraph 4 of his
Answer that he was never summoned or subpoenaed by the
Barangay Chairman; that plaintiff has no cause of action
against him as alleged in paragraph 7 of the Answer; and
that the certification to file action was improperly issued in
view of the foregoing allegations thereby resulting in non-
compliance with the mandatory requirements of P.D. No.
1508, as stated in paragraph 8 of the Answer are in
substantial compliance with the raising of said issues
and/or objections in the court below.
Petitioner would like to make it appear to this Court
that she appeared before the Lupon Chairman to confront
private re-

_________________

9Rollo, p. 51.
10Rollo, p. 52.

759

http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001664f32e8a7df698456003600fb002c009e/p/APW316/?username=Guest Page 7 of 10
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 211 07/10/2018, 11)46 PM

VOL. 211,JULY23,1992 759

Ledesma vs. Court of Appeals

11
spondent. She
12
stated in her Petition and her
Memorandum that:

„Upon failure of private respondent to honor the demand letters,

petitioner referred the matter to 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)
during the barangay proceeding as she was suffering from recurring
psychological and emotional ailment as can be seen from the receipt
and prescriptions issued by her psychiatrist copies of which are
attached herewith as Annexes ÂE-E10Ê.‰

However, as found out by the respondent court:

„We agree with the petitioner that private respondent Cecile

Ledesma failed to comply with section 6 of P.D. 1508. The record of
the case is barren showing compliance by the private respondent.
Indeed, the documentary evidence of the private respondent herself
attached to the complaint buttresses this conclusion. They show
that it is not the private respondent but her son. Raymund U.
Ledesma, and her lawyer, Atty. Epifania Navarro who dealt with
the petitioner regarding their dispute. Thus, the demand letter
dated October 18, 1988 sent to the petitioner for payment of rentals
in the sum of P14,039.00 was signed by Raymund Ledesma. On the
other hand, the demand letter dated November 14, 1988 was signed
by Atty. Epifania Navarro. More telling is the Certification to File
Action signed by Barangay Chairman, Alberto A. Solis where it
appears that the complainant is Raymund U. Ledesma and not the
13
private respondent.‰

As stated earlier, Section 9 of P.D. 1508 mandates personal

confrontation of the parties because:

„x x x a personal confrontation between the parties without the

intervention of a counsel or representative would generate
spontaneity and a favorable disposition to amicable settlement on
the part of the disputants. In other words, the said procedure is
deemed conducive to the successful resolution of the dispute at the
14
barangay level.‰

http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001664f32e8a7df698456003600fb002c009e/p/APW316/?username=Guest Page 8 of 10
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 211 07/10/2018, 11)46 PM

_________________

11Rollo, p. 12.
12Rollo, p. 116.
13Rollo, p. 44.
14Opinion No. 135, Minister of Justice, s. 1981.

760

760 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Ledesma vs. Court of Appeals

Petitioner tries to show that her failure to personally

appear before the barangay Chairman was because of her
recurring
15
psychological ailments. But for the entire year of
1988 specifically September to December 6·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
ChairmanÊs office.
Petitioner, not having shown that she is incompetent,
cannot be represented16by counsel or even by attorney-in-
fact who is next of kin.
As explained by the Minister of Justice with whom We
agree:

„To ensure compliance with the requirement of personal

confrontation between the parties, and thereby, the effectiveness of
the barangay conciliation proceedings as a mode of dispute
resolution, the above-quoted provision is couched in mandatory
language. Moreover, pursuant to the familiar maxim in statutory
construction dictating that expressio unius est exclusio alteriusÊ, the
express exceptions made regarding minors and incompetents must
17
be construed as exclusive of all others not mentioned.‰

PetitionerÊs non-compliance with Secs. 6 and 9 of P.D. 1508

legally barred her
18
from pursuing the ejectment case in the
MTC of Manila. Having arrived at this conclusion, there
is no need for Us to discuss the other issues involved.
WHEREFORE, the questioned decision and resolution of
the respondent Court are affirmed in toto with treble costs
against petitioner.
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001664f32e8a7df698456003600fb002c009e/p/APW316/?username=Guest Page 9 of 10
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 211 07/10/2018, 11)46 PM

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa (C.J., Chairman), Padilla and Regalado,

JJ., concur.

_________________

15See Annexes E to E-10-2.

16Section 9, P.D. 1508; Ramos vs. Court of Appeals, 174 SCRA 690,
695.
17Opinion No. 135, Minister of Justice, s. 1981.
18Section 4(d), P.D. 1508; Ramos vs. Court of Appeals, 174 SCRA 690,
695.

761

VOL. 211,JULY23,1992 761

Heirs of the Late Jaime Binuya vs. Court of Appeals

Decision and resolution affirmed in toto.

Note.·Where one party fails to appear for no justifiable

reason before the Punong Barangay, convening the
Pangkat ng Tagapagkasundo is no longer necessary
(Alinsugay vs. Cagampang, Jr., 143 SCRA 146).

··o0o··

© Copyright 2018 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001664f32e8a7df698456003600fb002c009e/p/APW316/?username=Guest Page 10 of 10