ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[ G.R. No. 136026. February 1, 1999]

MANNY DEL ROSARIO vs. COURT OF APPEALS, et al.

SECOND DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated FEB 1, 1999.

G.R. No. 136026 (Manny del Rosario v. Court of Appeals, et al.)

Petitioner Manny del Rosario was the lessee of a residential house and lot located at No. 6 Sgt. Pascua St. in Barangay Bagong Ilog, Pasig City owned by private respondent Hiram Oxales. Since November 22, 1992, however, he had not paid the monthly rentals of P710.00 for which reason private respondent filed a complaint for ejectment before the barangay chairman.

During barangay conciliation proceedings, private respondent manifested that he intended to sell the property and for this reason he was giving petitioner first priority in purchasing the same. He also agreed to give petitioner until March 31, 1995 to stay at the property.

In a letter, dated January 24, 1995, petitioner's lawyer informed private respondent that he was willing to buy the portion of the lot he was occupying. Private respondent denied, however, that he had given petitioner first priority to buy the land and instead demanded payment of P18,620.00 which he claimed petitioner owed him by way of rentals from November 1992 to January 1995. As no settlement of the dispute had been reached by the parties, the case was certified for trial. Accordingly, on November 16, 1995, private respondent filed a complaint for unlawful detainer in the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Pasig City.

On March 29, 1996, the MeTC rendered a decision ordering petitioner to vacate the subject property and to pay private respondent P25,000.00 representing unpaid rentals up to October 1995. On appeal, the Regional Trial Court (Branch 164, Pasig City) and, later the Court of Appeals, affirmed.

Hence, this petition. Petitioner contends that the Court of Appeals erred in holding that private respondent had substantially complied with R.A. No. 7160, �410 (b) and Supreme Court Circular No. 14-93 regarding barangay conciliation proceedings, when the fact was that there was no Pangkat na Tagapagkasundo constituted after mediation by the Lupon Chairman had failed.

The contention has no merit. Similar contention was made and rejected in Diu v. Court of Appeals, 251 SCRA 472, 479-480 (1995). The Court held that:

While no pangkat was constituted, it was not denied that the parties met at the office of the barangay chairman for possible settlement. The efforts of the barangay chairman, however,proved futile as no agreement was reached. Although no pangkat was formed, we believe that there was substantial compliance with the law. It is noteworthy that under Section 412 of the Local Government Code aforequoted, the confrontation before the lupon chairman of the pangkat is sufficient compliance with the precondition for filing the case in court.

This is true notwithstanding the mandate of Section 410 (b) of the same law that the barangay chairman shall constitute a pangkat if he fails in his mediation efforts. Section 410 (b) should be construed together with Section 412, as well as the circumstances obtaining in and peculiar to the case. On this score, it is significant that the barangay chairman or punong barangay is himself the chairman of the lupon under the Local Government Code.

Petitioner claims that the case of Diu does not apply because there the barangay chairman made efforts to have the parties reach a possible settlement, whereas, in this case, no such effort by the barangay chairman was made.

The contention is likewise without merit. To the contrary, it appears that it was because of the barangay chairman's efforts that private respondent gave petitioner until March 31, 1995 to vacate the property. But petitioner did not vacate nor pay the monthly rentals.

Considering the foregoing, the Court RESOLVED to DENY the petition for lack of showing that the Court of Appeals committed any reversible error.

Very truly yours,

TOMASITA M. DRIS

Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE