Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
[eamtrinidad]
UY vs. CONTRERAS
[GR NOs. 111416-17] | [September 26, 1994] | [David, J.]
CASE SUMMARY
There was a scuffle between petitioner and private respondent Atayde with relation to
the formers property in the premises she subleased from respondent. Respondents
had themselves medically examined, then filed a complaint with the barangay captain
of Valenzuela, Makati. Meanwhile, the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of Rizal filed
with MTC Makati two informations against petitioner for slight physical injuries. The
petitioner filed MTD with the MTC for non-compliance with PD 1508 and Sec 18 of
Revised Rules on Summary Procedure, which required prior referral to the Lupong
Tagapamayapa (barangay captain) before filing a case in court. Respondent judge
denied the MTD, and denied the subsequent MR. Hence this petition for certiorari
under Rule 65.
The Court held that while a confrontation of the parties before the lupon is a
requirement before the filing of a complaint in court, it would not deprive the courts of
their jurisdiction over the subject-matter or over the person of the defendants. The
effect of non-compliance would merely be that the complaint becomes afflicted with
the vice of pre-maturity; the controversy there alleged is not ripe for judicial
determination. The complaint becomes vulnerable to a motion to dismiss.
FACTS
Petition for certiorari under Rule 65
Petitioner subleased from respondent Atayde one half of the second floor of a
building. Petitioner operated a beauty parlor from the premises
The sublease contract expired on April 15, 1993. However the petitioner wasnt
able to remove all her movable properties
Two days after, petitioner sought to withdraw her property (shelves, frames,
mirror, shampoo bowl) from the premises, which resulted in an argument
between her and Atayde. It escalated into a scuffle between them and also
involved Ataydes employees, one of whom is private respondent Javier.
Respondents had themselves medically examined for injuries a few days after,
and then filed a complaint with the barangay captain of Valenzuela, Makati
The confrontation of the parties was scheduled by the barangay captain for 28
April 1993. On the said date, only the petitioner appeared. The barangay
captain then reset the confrontation to 26 May 1993.
Meanwhile, the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of Rizal filed with the MTC
of Makati two informations for slight physical injuries against the petitioner,
which were docketed as criminal cases
Public respondent Judge Contreras required petitioner to submit her and her
witnesses counter-affidavits
Petitioner submitted her counter-affidavit, and specifically alleged the
prematurity of the filing of the criminal cases for failure to undergo conciliation
proceedings as she and the private respondents are residents of Manila. She
also attached to it a certification by the barangay captain of Valenzuela, Makati
that there was an ongoing conciliation between Atayde and the petitioner
Petitioner then filed a motion to dismiss the criminal cases for non-
compliance with the requirement of P.D. No. 1508 on prior referral to the Lupong
Tagapamayapa and pursuant to Section 18 of the 1991 Revised Rule on
Summary Procedure.
Judge Contreras denied the motion to dismiss
o Said that as of the time the prosecutor submitted the informations,
nothing has been achieved by the barangay
o Petitioner and her witnesses already submitted their counter-affidavits,
which means she waived her right to reconciliation proceedings
o Plus petitioner and respondent are residents of different barangays
o The offense charged was committed in Makati
o The offense is about to prescribe, and that complainants may go directly
to the court where their complaint is about to prescribe or barred by
statute of limitations pursuant to Section 6 of PD 1508
Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration but it was denied
Hence this special civil action for certiorari.
PROCEDURE SUMMARY
Action Decision
Resps: filed complaint with brgy captain N/A
Prosecutor: filed crim cases with MTC
Petitioner: filed MTD crim case MTC: denied
Petitioner: filed MR for MTD MTC: denied
Petitioner: filed Rule 65 with SC SC: granted
ISSUE
1. WON respondent judge committed grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack of jurisdiction when he denied the motion to dismiss
considering that the private respondents failed to comply with the
mandatory requirement of P.D. No. 1508, now embodied in Section 412
of the Local Government Code of 1991 and further required under the
1991 Revised Rule on Summary Procedure YES
2. WON respondent judge was correct in saying that petitioner waived her right to
conciliation proceedings before Brgy Valenzuela in Makati considering she and
complainant lived in different barangays NO
RATIO
[CIVIL PROCEDURE] | [KATARUNGANG PAMBARANGAY] 3
[eamtrinidad]
DECISION
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is GRANTED.
The Orders of respondent Judge of 2 July 1993 and 5 August 1993 in Criminal
Cases Nos. 145233 and 1452334, both entitled "People of the Philippines vs.
Felicidad Uy" are hereby SET ASIDE
The respondent Judge is hereby DIRECTED to DISMISS said cases within ten (10)
days from receipt of a copy of this decision.
NOTES
[CIVIL PROCEDURE] | [KATARUNGANG PAMBARANGAY] 5
[eamtrinidad]