Uy v. Contreras
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Felicidad Uy subleased a portion of a building from respondent Susanna Atayde and operated a beauty parlor. The sublease expired on April 15, 1993. On April 17, 1993, an argument ensued between petitioner and Atayde, along with Atayde's employees, including respondent Winnie Javier, concerning the removal of petitioner's movable properties. Private respondents claimed to have sustained injuries and underwent medical examination on April 21, 1993. Procedural History: On April 23, 1993, private respondents filed a complaint with the barangay captain of Valenzuela, Makati, docketed as Barangay Cases Nos. 1023 and 1024. Confrontations were scheduled for April 28, 1993, and reset to May 26, 1993, as only petitioner appeared on the first date. Meanwhile, on May 11, 1993, the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of Rizal filed two informations for slight physical injuries against petitioner with the Metropolitan Trial Court (MTC) of Makati, docketed as Criminal Cases Nos. 145233 and 145234. Petitioner filed her counter-affidavits on June 14, 1993, asserting the prematurity of the criminal cases due to non-compliance with prior referral to the Lupong Tagapamayapa. On June 18, 1993, petitioner filed a motion to dismiss. On July 2, 1993, the MTC denied the motion to dismiss. A motion for reconsideration was denied on August 5, 1993. The Petition: Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, assailing the orders of the MTC for grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction in denying her motion to dismiss, citing non-compliance with P.D. No. 1508 and Section 18 of the 1991 Revised Rule on Summary Procedure.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent judge committed grave abuse of discretion in denying the motion to dismiss the criminal cases for failure to comply with the mandatory requirement of prior referral to the Lupong Tagapamayapa, and whether the filing of the criminal cases was premature.
Ruling
The petition is impressed with merit. The Supreme Court set aside the orders of the respondent judge and directed the dismissal of the criminal cases.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of prematurity and non-compliance with prior referral to the Lupong Tagapamayapa: The Court held that the mandatory requirement of prior referral to the Lupong Tagapamayapa, as provided for in P.D. No. 1508 and subsequently in Section 412 of the Local Government Code of 1991, is a pre-condition to the filing of a complaint in court. Non-compliance with this requirement renders the complaint premature and vulnerable to dismissal, as established in jurisprudence like Peregrina vs. Panis and Garces vs. Court of Appeals. The Court emphasized that the respondent judge's unawareness of the Local Government Code of 1991, which repealed P.D. No. 1508, was distressing and led to an erroneous ruling. The judge should have taken judicial notice of the law. The filing of the criminal cases on May 11, 1993, was premature because conciliation proceedings had commenced on April 23, 1993, and were still pending. The exception allowing direct recourse to court when an action is about to prescribe was inapplicable because the prescriptive period was suspended during the barangay conciliation process. Pursuant to Section 410(c) of the Local Government Code of 1991, the prescriptive period for offenses is interrupted upon filing of the complaint with the punong barangay and resumes upon receipt of the certification to file action, with such interruption not exceeding sixty (60) days. In this case, the complaints were filed on April 23, 1993, suspending the prescriptive period for sixty days, until June 22, 1993. The offenses charged, slight physical injuries, prescribe in two months. Therefore, even if a certification to file action were issued after the suspension period, there would still be sufficient time to file the complaints. The respondent judge's justification that the parties were residents of different barangays and thus the law did not apply was also incorrect, as the petitioner had submitted to the barangay proceedings and invoked the requirement. The private respondents' subsequent request for a certification to file action, dated June 23, 1993, was made after the criminal cases were already filed, indicating an attempt to retroactively justify their actions.
Main Doctrine
Failure to comply with the mandatory requirement of prior referral to the Lupong Tagapamayapa, as mandated by P.D. No. 1508 and subsequently by the Local Government Code of 1991, renders a complaint premature and vulnerable to dismissal, unless an exception provided by law applies. The prescriptive period for offenses is suspended during the pendency of barangay conciliation proceedings.