Civil Procedure Case Digest

Ledesma v. Court of Appeals 211 SCRA 753 Facts: Petitioner Cecilia U. Ledesma is the owner-lessor of an apartment building. Two units were leased (now unlawfully occupied) by respondent Jose T. Dizon. Said lease was originally covered by written contracts and except for the rates and duration, the terms and conditions of said contracts were impliedly renewed on a month to month basis. One of the terms of the lease, that of monthly payments, was violated by respondent. Upon failure of 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 ailments as can be seen from prescription and receipts by her psychiatrist. Due to the stubborn refusal of the respondent to vacate the premises, petitioner was constrained to retain the services of a lawyer to initiate the ejectment proceeding. MTC ordered respondent to vacate. RTC affirmed the MTC. Respondent however found favor in the CA because of lack of cause of action. CA held that petitioner failed compliance with Sections 6 and 9 of PD 1508. Petitioner submits that said issue, not having been raised by respondent in the court below cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. Issue: Whether there is non-compliance with Sections 6 and 9 of PD 1508. Held: When respondent stated that he was never summoned or subpoenaed by the Barangay, he, in effect, was stating that since he was never summoned, he could not appear in person for the needed confrontation and/or amicable settlement. Without the mandatory confrontation, no complaint could be filed with the MTC.

Manuel Rodriguez FEU Institute of Law

Civil Procedure Case Digest

Moreover, petitioner tries to show that her failure to appear before the Barangay was because of her recurring psychological ailments. But for the entire year of 1998, there is no indication at all that petitioner went to see her psychiatrist. The only conclusion is that 1998 was a lucid interval. There was therefore no excuse then for her nonappearance. Therefore, she cannot be represented by counsel or by attorney-in-fact who is next of kin. Her non compliance with PD 1508 legally barred her from pursuing case in the MTC.

Manuel Rodriguez FEU Institute of Law