Domingo v. Rosero
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: The underlying dispute involved a complaint for declaration of ownership with damages filed by petitioner Eleuterio Domingo against respondents, the spouses Leonilo Bercasio and Candida dela Torre. The core issue revolved around the applicability of Presidential Decree No. 1508, the Katarungang Pambarangay Law, which mandates conciliation proceedings before barangay authorities as a prerequisite to filing cases in court. 2. Procedural History: Petitioner filed his complaint on February 7, 1984. Respondents filed their answer on February 24, 1984. Subsequently, on November 11, 1984, respondents moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing petitioner's failure to comply with P.D. No. 1508. The Regional Trial Court, Branch XXVI, Naga City, through respondent Judge Alfredo A. Rosero, dismissed the complaint on November 23, 1984, for lack of jurisdiction. Petitioner's motion for reconsideration was denied on February 6, 1985. 3. The Petition: Petitioner filed a special civil action for certiorari with the Supreme Court, assailing the RTC's dismissal for grave abuse of discretion. He argued that P.D. No. 1508 was inapplicable because the parties resided in different provinces (Metro Manila and Camarines Sur), and alternatively, that the respondents waived the defense by not raising it in their answer or a pre-answer motion. The Supreme Court granted the petition, holding that P.D. No. 1508 only applies to residents of the same city or municipality or adjoining barangays, and that the failure to raise the defense timely constituted a waiver.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent judge acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in dismissing the petitioner's complaint for failure to undergo prior barangay conciliation proceedings, considering the parties' residences. Whether, even assuming barangay conciliation was initially required, the private respondents waived this requirement by failing to timely raise it as a defense.
Ruling
The Supreme Court granted the petition, reversed and set aside the Resolution dated November 23, 1984, and the Order dated February 6, 1985, of the public respondent, ordering the trial court to reinstate Civil Case No. 84-295.
Ratio Decidendi
On the applicability of P.D. No. 1508 based on residency: The Court held that Presidential Decree No. 1508, the Katarungang Pambarangay Law, specifically Section 2 and Section 3 thereof, clearly states that the Lupon shall have authority only over disputes between parties who are actual residents of the same city or municipality, or residents of adjoining barangays in different municipalities. The petitioner averred in his complaint that he resided in Pateros, Metro Manila, while the private respondents resided in Camarines Sur. This averment was admitted by the private respondents in their Answer. Therefore, the parties were residents of different provinces, making P.D. No. 1508 inapplicable to their dispute. The Court found it absurd to require conciliation for residents of distant provinces when the law itself is inapplicable to residents of different municipalities unless they are from adjacent barangays. Thus, the dispute was beyond the jurisdiction of any barangay court and could be filed directly in the regular courts. On waiver of the barangay conciliation requirement: Even assuming, for the sake of argument, that the dispute was cognizable by a barangay court, the Court reiterated that the requirement of submission to the Lupong Tagapayapa under P.D. No. 1508 is merely a condition precedent for filing a complaint in court and is not jurisdictional. Jurisdiction is vested by the Judiciary Revamp Law (B.P. Blg. 129) and the Judiciary Act of 1948. Consequently, the failure of the private respondents to raise the ground of non-compliance with P.D. No. 1508 in a motion to dismiss filed before their answer, or in their answer itself, constitutes a waiver of that ground. The Court has consistently adhered to this rule and found no reason to deviate from it.
Main Doctrine
The requirement of prior conciliation proceedings before the Lupon Tagapayapa under Presidential Decree No. 1508 is not jurisdictional and failure to raise this ground in a motion to dismiss before the answer is filed constitutes a waiver thereof. Furthermore, PD 1508 applies only to parties residing in the same city or municipality, or in adjoining barangays of different municipalities, not to parties residing in different provinces.