Scribd
Upload
1K views

Uy vs. Contreras Digest

Felicidad and Susanna had a dispute over Felicidad removing her personal property from a house she subleased to Susanna. A complaint was filed in court against Felicidad before attempts at conciliation in the local barangay. The court denied Felicidad's motion to dismiss, but the Supreme Court ruled the court erred because the Local Government Code requires disputes be brought to the barangay first. The Supreme Court held that non-compliance with the barangay conciliation process makes a complaint vulnerable to dismissal for lack of cause of action or prematurity.

Uploaded by

Prime Antonio Ramos
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
1K views

Uy vs. Contreras Digest

Felicidad and Susanna had a dispute over Felicidad removing her personal property from a house she subleased to Susanna. A complaint was filed in court against Felicidad before attempts at conciliation in the local barangay. The court denied Felicidad's motion to dismiss, but the Supreme Court ruled the court erred because the Local Government Code requires disputes be brought to the barangay first. The Supreme Court held that non-compliance with the barangay conciliation process makes a complaint vulnerable to dismissal for lack of cause of action or prematurity.

Uploaded by

Prime Antonio Ramos
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

FELICIDAD UY vs. HON. MAXIMO C.

CONTRERAS, Presiding Judge,


Metropolitan Trial Court, Makati; HON. MAURO M. CASTRO, Provincial
Prosecutor of Pasig; SUSANNA ATAYDE and WINNIE JAVIER.
G.R. No. 111416-17, September 26, 1994

FACTS:

When the sublease between Felicidad [sublessor] and Susanna [sublessee]


expired, the former failed to remove her personal properties in the house. An
argument, which eventually ended in a scuffle, arose between the two when
Felicidad attempted to withdraw the movables.

A complaint was filed before the barangay captain. Meanwhile, the


Provincial Prosecutor of Rizal filed two (2) informations against the Felicidad
before the Municipal Trial Court of Makati. Felicidad moved for the dismissal of
the complaint in court contending that there is an ongoing conciliation
proceeding before the barangay making the court proceedings premature. The
court denied the motion to dismiss because Felicidad already submitted a
counter-affidavit to the complaint thereby waiving her right to pursue the
proceedings in the barangay.

ISSUE:

Was the court in error in denying the motion to dismiss filed by Felicidad
for failure of Susanna to comply with the mandatory provisions of Presidential
Decree 1508 and the Local Government Code on Katarungang Pambarangay?

HELD:

The court erred in not dismissing the information.

First, the Provincial Prosecutor of Rizal should have inquired from


Susanna if there was a prior referral to the lupon before filing the informations.
Second, the judge should have taken judicial notice of the provisions of the Local
Government Code on Katarungang Pambarangay because under Section 1, Rule
129 of the Rules of Court, courts are mandatorily required to take judicial notice
of official acts. Third, Susanna failed to appear during the two scheduled
mediation, which should have resulted to a no complaint for slight physical
injuries.

In view of the failure of Susanna to comply with the Local Government


Code on Katarungang Pambarangay, the case should be dismissed for being
premature.

RATIO DECIDENDI:

Citing previous rulings, the Supreme Court held that Presidential Decree
No. 1508 makes the conciliation process at the barangay level a condition
precedent before filing a complaint in court. Non-compliance with this rule could
affect the sufficiency of the complainant’s cause of action and makes his
complaint vulnerable to dismissal on the ground of lack of cause of action or
prematurity.

However, this rule can be waived if the defendant failed to seasonably


invoke the non-referral to the appropriate lupon; or if the defect was initially
present when the case was filed in the trial court, the subsequent issuance of
the certification to file action by the barangay will cure the defect.

You might also like