ZAMORA v HEIRS OF IZQUIERDO

Nov 18 2004 | Sandoval-Gutierrez, J. | Petition for Review on Certiorari | Katarungang

Pambarangay
PETITIONER: Avelina Zamora, Emerita Zamora-Nicol, Sonny Nicol, Teresa ZamoraUmali, Clarence Umali, Roberto Zamora, Rolando Zamora, Mary Ann Zamora, Michelle
Zamora And Rodrigo Zamora
RESPONDENT: Heirs Of Carmen Izquierdo, Represented By Their Attorney-In-Fact, Anita
F. Punzalan
SUMMARY: The Zamoras, lessees, did not pay the increased rental imposed by the lessor,
Izquierdos. The Zamoras applied for a water installation but was not given by an owners
consent by the attorney of the Izquierdos. Zamoras had several confrontations in the barangay
with the Izquierdos but no conciliation was made. The Izquierdos obtained a Certification to
File Action. The Izquierdos filed a complaint for unlawful detainer against the Zamoras. The
Zamoras filed a motion to dismiss arguing that the Punong Barangay, as Lupon Chairman, did
not constitute the Pangkat ng Tagapagkasundo before whom mediation proceedings should
have been conducted as required by the LGC.
DOCTRINE: Section 412(a) of R.A. No. 7160 requires the parties to undergo a conciliation
process before the Lupon Chairman or the Pangkat as a precondition to filing a complaint in
court. In this case, the Punong Barangay, as Chairman of the Lupong Tagapamayapa,
conducted conciliation proceedings. There were confrontations before the barangay chairman
on 9 different dates wherein not only the issue of water installation was discussed but also the
terms of the lease and the proposed execution of a written contract relative thereto. While it is
true that the Sertifikasyon is entitled Ukol Sa Hindi Pagbibigay Ng Pahintulot Sa
Pagpapakabit Ng Tubig, this title must not prevail over the actual issues discussed in the
proceedings. In Diu vs. Court of Appeals, the SC held that while the Pangkat was not
constituted, however, the parties met nine (9) times at the Office of the Barangay Chairman
for conciliation wherein not only the issue of water installation was discussed but also
petitioners violation of the lease contract. It is thus manifest that there was substantial
compliance with the law which does not require strict adherence thereto.
FACTS:
1.

2.

3.

the latter declined because Ps refused to pay the new rental rate and violated the
restrictions on the use of the premises by using a portion thereof for photox business
and allowing 3 families to reside therein.
4.

This prompted Avelina to file with the Office of the Punong Brgy a complaint
against Punzalan. During the brgy conciliation proceedings, Zamora declared that
she refused to sign because she is not agreeable with the conditions in the contract.

5.

The ff day, Punzalan sent Avelina a letter informing her that the lease is being
terminated and demanding that Ps vacate the premises w/in 30d from notice.
Despite several brgy conciliation sessions, the parties failed to settle their dispute
amicably. Hence, the Brgy Chairman issued a Certification to File Action.

6.

Rs represented by Punzalan, filed with MTC, a complaint for unlawful detainer and
damages against Ps. Forthwith, Ps filed an MTD on the ground that the controversy
was not referred to the brgy for conciliation. First, they alleged that the brgyy Cert.
to File Action is fatally defective because it pertains to another dispute, i.e., the
refusal by Punzalan to give her written consent for installation of water facilities;
and second, when the parties failed to reach an amicable settlement before
the Lupong Tagapamayapa, the Punong Barangay (as Lupon Chairman), did not
constitute the Pangkat ng Tagapagkasundo before whom mediation or arbitration
proceedings should have been conducted, in violation of Sec 410(b), LGC.

7.

Rs opposed the MTD, the same being prohibited under Sec 19 of the 1991 Revised
Rule on Summary Procedure. They prayed that judgment be rendered as may be
warranted by the facts alleged in the complaint, pursuant to Section 6 of the same
Rule.

8.

MTC: denied MTD. MR by Ps also denied. On appeal, RTC affirmed.

Carmen Izquierdo and Pablo Zamora entered into a verbal stipulation whereby the
former leased to the latter 1 of her apartment units in Caloocan (rental = 3k/month;
for residence only; only a single family is allowed to occupy).

ISSUE: WoN Sec 412 was complied with before Punzalan filed an action with the Court
YES, there was substanstial compliance.

After the death of Carmen (lessor), her attorney-in-fact, Punzalan, representing the
heirs, prepared a new contract of lease rental was increased to 3 600/month.
However, petitioners refused to sign it.

RATIO:

Pablo (lessee) died. His wife, Avelina, and their children (2 of whom have their own
families), continued to reside in the apartment unit. Meanwhile, Avelina applied with
the MWSS for a water line installation in the premises. Since a written consent from
the owner is reqd for such installation, she requested Punzalan to issue it. However,

RULING: Petition denied.

1.

The primordial objective of PD 1508 (the Katarungang Pambarangay Law), now

included under the LGC, is to reduce the number of court litigations and prevent the
deterioration of the quality of justice which has been brought about by the
indiscriminate filing of cases in the courts. To attain this objective, Sec 412(a) LGC
requires the parties to undergo a conciliation process before the Lupon Chairman or
the Pangkat as a precondition to filing a complaint in court.

Ps MTD the complaint for unlawful detainer is proscribed by Sec 19(a) 1 of the 1991
Revised Rule on Summary Procedure. Sec 19(a) permits the filing of such pleading
only when the ground for dismissal of the complaint is anchored on lack of
jurisdiction over the subj matter, or failure by the complainant to refer the subj
matter of his/her complaint to the Lupon for conciliation prior to its filing with
the court. This is clear from the provisions of Section 182 of the same Rule.

2.

In this case, the Punong Brgy, as Chairman of the Lupong Tagapamayapa,

conducted conciliation proceedings to resolve the dispute bet. the parties herein.
Contrary to Ps contention, the complaint does not only allege, as a cause of action,
the refusal of Punzalan to give her consent to the installation of water facilities in the
premises, but also Ps violation of the terms of the lease, specifically their use of a
portion therein for their photox business and their failure to pay the increased rental.

9.

3.

As correctly found by the RTC, confrontations before the barangay chairman were
held from Jan-Aug, 1997 wherein not only the issue of water installation was
discussed but also the terms of the lease and the proposed execution of a written
contract relative thereto. It appears, however, that no settlement was reached despite
a total of 9 meetings at the brgy level.

10. As discussed earlier, the case was referred to the Lupon Chairman for conciliation.
Obviously, the MTD, even if allowed, is bereft of merit.

4.

It is of no moment that the complaint was initially made by Zamora because

Punzalan was given by the Sangguniang Brgy the authority to bring her grievance to
the Court for resolution. While it is true that the Sertifikasyon is entitled Ukol Sa
Hindi Pagbibigay Ng Pahintulot Sa Pagpapakabit Ng Tubig, this title must not
prevail over the actual issues discussed in the proceedings.

5.

Hence, to require another confrontation at the brgy level as a sine qua non for the
filing of the instant case would not serve any useful purpose anymore since no new
issues would be raised therein and the parties have proven so many times in the past
that they cannot get to settle their differences amicably.

6.

SC cannot sustain Ps contention that the Lupon conciliation alone, w/o the
proceeding before the Pangkat ng Tagapagkasundo, contravenes the law
on Katarungang Pambarangay. Section 412(a) LGC, clearly provides that, as a
precondition to filing a complaint in court, the parties shall go through the
conciliation process either before the Lupon Chairman (as what happened in the
present case), or the Pangkat.

7.

Diu vs. CA: SC held that notwithstanding the mandate in Section 410(b) LGC that
the Brgy Chairman shall constitute a Pangkat if he fails in his mediation efforts, the
same Sec 410(b) should be construed together with Sec 412(a), as well as the
circumstances obtaining in and peculiar to the case.

8.

Here, while the Pangkat was not constituted, however, the parties met 9 times at the
Office of the Brgy Chairman for conciliation wherein not only the issue of water
installation was discussed but also Ps violation of the lease contract. It is thus
manifest that there was substantial compliance with the law.

1SEC.19.Prohibitedpleadingsandmotions.Thefollowingpleadings,motions,orpetitionsshallnotbe
allowedinthecasescoveredbythisRule:(a)Motiontodismissthecomplaintortoquashthecomplaint
orinformationexceptonthegroundoflackofjurisdictionoverthesubjectmatter,orfailuretocomply
with the preceding section[referring to Section 18 on referral of the complaint to theLuponfor
conciliation]

2 SEC. 18. Referral to Lupon. Cases requiring referral to the Lupon for conciliation under the
provisions of Presidential Decree No. 1508 where there is no showing of compliance with such
requirement, shall be dismissed without prejudice, and may be revived only after such requirement
shall have been complied with. This provision shall not apply to criminal cases where the accused was
arrested without a warrant.