Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1984 > October 1984 Decisions > G.R. No. 56011 October 31, 1984 - ELMER PEREGRINA, ET AL. v. DOMINGO D. PANIS:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 56011. October 31, 1984.]

ELMER PEREGRINA, ADELAIDA PEREGRINA and CECILIA PEREGRINA, Petitioners, v. HON. DOMINGO D. PANIS, Presiding Judge, Court of First Instance of Zambales & Olongapo City, Branch III, PROCOPIO SANCHEZ and CARMELITA SANCHEZ, Respondents.

Europa & Dacanay Law Office for Petitioner.

Abelardo M. Aportadera for Respondents.


SYLLABUS


1. REMEDIAL LAW; JURISDICTION; PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 1508; CONCILIATION PROCESS AT THE BARANGAY LEVEL, CONDITION PRECEDENT FOR THE FILING OF COMPLAINT COURT. — Morata v. Go. 125 SCRA 444 (1983), and Vda. de Borromeo v. Pogoy, 126 SCRA 217 (1983) have held that P.D. No. 1508 makes the conciliation process at the Barangay level a condition precedent for the filing of a complaint in Court. Non-compliance with that condition precedent could affect the sufficiency of the plaintiff’s cause of action and make his complaint vulnerable to dismissal on the ground of lack of cause of action or prematurity (Royales v. Intermediate Appellate Court 127 SCRA 470 [1984]). The condition is analogous to exhaustion of administrative remedies (Gone v. District Engineer, 66 SCRA 335 [1975]), or the lack of earnest efforts to compromise suits between family members (Versoza v. Versoza, 26 SCRA 78 [1968]), lacking which the case can be dismissed. (Sections. [g] & [j], Rule 16, Rules of Court.) The parties herein fall squarely within the ambit of P.D. No. 1508. They are actual residents in the same barangay and their dispute does not fall under any of the excepted cases.

2. ID.; ID.; ID.; PRIOR REFERRAL TO THE UPON FOR CONCILIATION PROCEEDINGS WAS CALLED FOR; CASE AT BAR. — Respondent judge erred in reconsidering his previous Order of dismissal on the ground that the provisional remedy of attachment was seasonably filed. Not only was the application for that remedy merely an afterthought to circumvent the law, but also, fundamentally, a Writ of Attachment is not available in a suit for damages where the amount, including moral damages, is contingent or unliquidated. (Salas v. Adil, 90 SCRA 121 [1979]). Prior referral to the Lupon for conciliation proceedings, therefore, was indubitably called for.


D E C I S I O N


MELENCIO-HERRERA, J.:


Respondent Court’s assumption of jurisdiction, without prior conciliation proceedings between the parties in the Lupon Tagapayapa, is questioned in this Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition with Preliminary Injunction. We issued a Temporary Restraining Order enjoining, respondent Judge from taking further action in the case pending resolution of the controversy.

The Complaint filed below by the SPOUSES Procopio and Carmelita Sanchez against PETITIONERS Elmer, Adelaida and Cecilia, all surnamed Peregrina, is a civil action for damages for alleged disrespect for the dignity, privacy and peace of mind of the SPOUSES under Article 26 of the Civil Code, and for alleged defamation under Article 33 of the same Code.

Admittedly, the parties are actual residents of the same barangay in Olongapo City. In fact, they are neighbors. Unquestionably, too, no conciliation proceedings were filed before the Lupon. It is not surprising then that the Complaint is silent regarding compliance with the mandatory requirement, nor does it allege that the dispute falls within the excepted cases. 1

PETITIONERS, as defendants below, moved for the dismissal of the Complaint. Before filing an Opposition, the SPOUSES applied for a Writ of Preliminary Attachment. Thereafter, the SPOUSES presented their Opposition claiming that, under Section 6(3) of P.D. No. 1508, the parties may go directly to the Courts if the action is coupled with a provisional remedy such as preliminary attachment.chanrobles law library

In resolving the Motion to Dismiss, respondent Judge at first, dismissed the Complaint for failure of the SPOUSES to comply with the pre-condition for amicable settlement under P.D. No. 1508, stating that the application for a provisional remedy was merely an afterthought. On motion for reconsideration by the SPOUSES, however, respondent Judge denied PETITIONERS’ Motion to Dismiss on the ground that under Rule 57, Section 1 of the Rules of Court, the application for attachment can be made at the commencement of the action or any time thereafter. PETITIONERS now assail that Order of denial before us.

We uphold PETITIONERS. Section 3 of P.D. No. 1508 specifically provides:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Disputes between or among persons actually residing in the same barangay shall be brought for amicable settlement before the Lupon of said barangay . . ."cralaw virtua1aw library

It is also mandated by Section 6 of the same law:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"SECTION 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 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 . . ."cralaw virtua1aw library

Thus, Morata v. Go, 125 SCRA 444 (1983), and Vda. de Borromeo v. Pogoy, 126 SCRA 217 (1983) have held that P.D. No. 1508 makes the conciliation process at the Barangay level a condition precedent for the filing of a complaint in Court. Non-compliance with that condition precedent could affect the sufficiency of the plaintiff’s cause of action and make his complaint vulnerable to dismissal on the ground of lack of cause of action or prematurity. 2 The condition is analogous to exhaustion of administrative remedies, 3 or the lack of earnest efforts to compromise suits between family members, 4 lacking which the case can be dismissed. 5

The parties herein fall squarely within the ambit of P.D. No. 1508. They are actual residents in the same barangay and their dispute does not fall under any of the excepted cases. 6

It will have to be held, therefore, that respondent Judge erred in reconsidering his previous Order of dismissal on the ground that the provisional remedy of attachment was seasonably filed. Not only was the application for that remedy merely an afterthought to circumvent the law, but also, fundamentally, a Writ of Attachment is not available in a suit for damages where the amount, including moral damages, is contingent or unliquidated. 7 Prior referral to the Lupon for conciliation proceedings, therefore, was indubitably called for.chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

WHEREFORE, respondent Judge’s Order, dated November 17, 1980, is SET ASIDE, and the Complaint in Civil Case No. 2946-0 for damages is DISMISSED, without prejudice. The Temporary Restraining Order heretofore issued is hereby made permanent. No costs.

Teehankee, Plana, Relova, Gutierrez, Jr. and De la Fuente, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. Sections 2 and 6, P.D. No. 1508.

2. Royales v. Intermediate Appellate Court, 127 SCRA 470 (1984).

3. Gone v. District Engineer, 66 SCRA 335 (1975).

4. Versoza v. Versoza, 26 SCRA 78 (1968).

5. Sections (g) & (j), Rule 16, Rules of Court.

6. "Section 6. Conciliation, pre-condition to filing of complaint. — . . . However, the parties may go directly to court in the following cases:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

(1) Where the accused is under detention;

(2) Where a person has otherwise been deprived of personal liberty calling for habeas corpus proceedings;

(3) Actions coupled with provisional remedies such as preliminary injunction, attachment, delivery of personal property and support pendente lite; and

(4) Where the action may otherwise be barred by the Statute of Limitations.

7. Salas v. Adil, 90 SCRA 121 (1979).




Back to Home | Back to Main


chanrobles.com



ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc. : www.chanroblesprofessionalreview.com
ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com
ChanRobles CPA Review Online

ChanRobles CPALE Review Online : www.chanroblescpareviewonline.com
ChanRobles Special Lecture Series

ChanRobles Special Lecture Series - Memory Man : www.chanroblesbar.com/memoryman





October-1984 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-28377 October 1, 1984 - IN RE: UY TONG v. MARIO R. SILVA

  • B.M. No. 139 October 11, 1984 - PROCOPIO S. BELTRAN, JR. v. ELMO S. ABAD

  • G.R. No. L-35605 October 11, 1984 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. JUDGE OF BRANCH III OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF CEBU, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-31139 October 12, 1984 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RENATO MORAL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-34857 October 12, 1984 - AGAPITO PAREDES, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-43792 October 12, 1984 - PEDRO BALDEBRIN v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-61647 October 12, 1984 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-62243 October 12, 1984 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. REGINO VERIDIANO II, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-28673 October 23, 1984 - SAMAR MINING COMPANY, INC. v. NORDEUTSCHER LLOYD, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-30310 October 23, 1984 - SATURNINO MEDIJA v. ERNESTO PATCHO, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-31300-01 October 23, 1984 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. HENRY A. ENRIQUEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-31861 October 23, 1984 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PEDRITO RAMOS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-32216 October 23, 1984 - NATIONAL MINES & ALLIED WORKER’S UNION v. GABRIEL V. VALERO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-33442 October 23, 1984 - JOVITA QUISMUNDO v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-34654 October 23, 1984 - BENJAMIN TUPAS, ET AL. v. DANIEL DAMASCO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-36513 October 23, 1984 - RAMON ALBORES v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-38346-47 October 23, 1984 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TEOFILO DIOSO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-43349 October 23, 1984 - REMUS VILLAVIEJA v. MARINDUQUE MINING AND INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-44455 October 23, 1984 - JACOBO I. GARCIA v. JUAN F. ECHIVERRI, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-45087 October 23, 1984 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PROCESO Q. ABALLE

  • G.R. No. L-52348 October 23, 1984 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. IGNACIO SECULLES

  • G.R. No. L-52415 October 23, 1984 - INSULAR BANK OF ASIA AND AMERICA EMPLOYEES’ UNION v. AMADO G. INCIONG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-56218 October 23, 1984 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GAUDENCIO PADILLA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-56856 October 23, 1984 - HENRY BACUS, ET AL. v. BLAS OPLE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-57738 October 23, 1984 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GORGONIO RESANO

  • G.R. No. L-59980 October 23, 1984 - BERLIN TAGUBA, ET AL. v. MARIA PERALTA VDA. DE DE LEON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-62439 October 23, 1984 - GREGORY JAMES POZAR v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. L-33841 October 31, 1984 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FLAVIANO G. PUDA

  • G.R. No. L-38988 October 31, 1984 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RAFAEL DALUSAG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-39025 October 31, 1984 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RODOLFO YURONG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-39949 October 31, 1984 - MANUEL H. SANTIAGO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-40244 October 31, 1984 - JULIANA Z. LIMOICO v. BOARD OF ADMINISTRATORS

  • G.R. No. L-41569 October 31, 1984 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SALVADOR C. REYES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-44486 October 31, 1984 - ALEXIS C. GANDIONCO v. SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE AND NATURAL RESOURCES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 53568 October 31, 1984 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE SALIG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 56011 October 31, 1984 - ELMER PEREGRINA, ET AL. v. DOMINGO D. PANIS

  • G.R. No. 56540 October 31, 1984 - COSME LACUESTA v. BARANGAY CASABAAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 58426 October 31, 1984 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DANILO VALENCIA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 59956 October 31, 1984 - ISABELO MORAN, JR. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 61215 October 31, 1984 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CESAR MANCAO, JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 61873 October 31, 1984 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ELIAS BORROMEO

  • G.R. No. 64316 October 31, 1984 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GEORGE RAMIREZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 64923 October 31, 1984 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. QUIRINO CIELO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 65349 October 31, 1984 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ARMANDO M. ADRIANO

  • G.R. No. 66070 October 31, 1984 - EQUITABLE BANKING CORPORATION v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 66321 October 31, 1984 - TRADERS ROYAL BANK v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 67422-24 October 31, 1984 - FERNANDO VALDEZ v. GREGORIO U. AQUILIZAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 68043 October 31, 1984 - PALOMO BUILDING TENANTS ASSOCIATION, INC., ET AL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.