1. Original vs. appellate
a. ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
| Jurisdiction in civil cases: Regional Trial Courts shall exercise exclusive original jurisdiction: |
| 1) In all civil actions in which the subject of the litigation is incapable of pecuniary estimation; |
| 2) In all civil actions which involve the title to, or possession of, real property, or any interest therein, where the assessed value exceeds Four hundred thousand pesos (P400,000.00), except for forcible entry into and unlawful detainer of lands or buildings, original jurisdiction over which is conferred upon the Metropolitan Trial Courts, and Municipal Trial Courts in Cities, Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts; |
| 3) In all actions in admiralty and maritime jurisdiction where the demand or claims exceeds Two million pesos (P2,000,000.00); |
| 4) In all matters of probate, both estate and intestate, where the gross value of the estate exceeds Two million pesos (P2,000,000.00) |
| 5) In all actions involving the contract of marriage and marital relations; |
| 6) In all cases not within the exclusive jurisdiction of any court, tribunal, person or body exercising jurisdiction of any court, tribunal, person or body exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions; |
| 7) In all civil actions and special proceedings falling within the exclusive original jurisdiction of a Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court and of the Court of Agrarian Relations as now provided by law; and |
| 8) In all other cases in which the demand, exclusive of interest, damages of whatever kind, attorney’s fees, litigation expenses and costs or the value of the property in controversy exceeds Two million pesos (P2,000,000.00). (Section 189, B.P. 129, as amended by R.A. No. 7691 and 11576) |
| Jurisdiction of Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts in Criminal Cases: Except in cases falling within the exclusive original jurisdiction of Regional Trial Courts and of the Sandiganbayan, the Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts shall exercise: |
| 1) Exclusive original jurisdiction over all violations of city or municipal ordinances committed within their respective territorial jurisdiction; and |
| 2) Exclusive original jurisdiction over all offenses punishable with imprisonment not exceeding six (6) years irrespective of the amount of fine, and regardless of other imposable accessory or other penalties, including the civil liability arising from such offenses or predicated thereon, irrespective of kind, nature, value or amount thereof: Provided, however, That in offenses involving damage to property through criminal negligence, they shall have exclusive original jurisdiction thereof. (Section 32, Ibid.) |
| Jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts in Cities, Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts in Civil Cases. – Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts in Cities, Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts shall exercise: |
| 1) Exclusive original jurisdiction over civil actions and probate proceedings, testate and intestate, including the grant of provisional remedies in proper cases, where the value of the personal property, estate, or amount of the demand does not exceed Two million pesos (P2,000,000.00), exclusive of interest, damages of whatever kind, attorney’s fees, litigation expenses, and costs, the amount of which must be specifically alleged: Provided, That interest, damages of whatever kind, attorney’s fees, litigation expenses, and costs shall be included in the determination of the filing fees: Provided, further, That where there are several claims or causes of actions between the same or different parties, embodied in the same complaint, the amount of the demand shall be totality of the claims in all the causes of action, irrespective of whether the causes of action arose out of the same or different transactions; |
| 2) Exclusive original jurisdiction over cases of forcible entry and unlawful detainer: Provided, That when, in such cases, the defendant raises the questions of ownership in his pleadings and the question of possession cannot be resolved without deciding the issue of ownership, the issue of ownership shall be resolved only to determine the issue of possession; and |
| 3) Exclusive original jurisdiction in all civil actions which involve title to, or possession of, real property, or any interest therein where the assessed value of the property or any interest therein does not exceed Four hundred thousand pesos (P400,000.00) exclusive on interest, damages of whatever kind, attorney’s fees, litigation expenses and costs: Provided, That in cases of land not declared for taxation purposes, the value of such property shall be determined by the assessed value of the adjacent lots. |
| 4) Exclusive original jurisdiction in admiralty and maritime actions where the demand or claim does not exceed Two million pesos (P2,000,000.00). (Section 33, Ibid.) |
| Delegated Jurisdiction in Cadastral and Land Registration Cases: |
| Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts may be assigned by the Supreme Court to hear and determine cadastral or land registration cases covering lots where there is no controversy or opposition, or contested lots where the value of which does not exceed One hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00), such value to be ascertained by the affidavit of the claimant or by agreement of the respective claimants if there are more than one, or from the corresponding tax declaration of the real property. Their decisions in these cases shall be appealable in the same manner as decisions of the Regional Trial Courts. (Section 34, Ibid.) |
| Special jurisdiction in certain cases: |
| In the absence of all the Regional Trial Judges in a province or city, any Metropolitan Trial Judge, Municipal Trial Judge, Municipal Circuit Trial Judge may hear and decide petitions for a writ of habeas corpus or applications for bail in criminal cases in the province or city where the absent Regional Trial Judges sit. (Section 35, Ibid.) |
b. APPELLATE JURISDICTION
2. General vs. special
a. GENERAL JURISDICTION
| Jurisdiction in civil cases: Regional Trial Courts shall exercise exclusive original jurisdiction: |
| x x x |
| 8) In all other cases in which the demand, exclusive of interest, damages of whatever kind, attorney’s fees, litigation expenses and costs or the value of the property in controversy exceeds Two million pesos (P2,000,000.00). (Section 189, B.P. 129, as amended by R.A. No. 7691 and 11576) |
The regional trial court, formerly the court of first instance, is a court of general jurisdiction. All cases, the jurisdiction over which is not specifically provided for by law to be within the jurisdiction of any other court, fall under the jurisdiction of the regional trial court.
a. Transfer of jurisdiction under P.D. 902-A
Transfer of jurisdiction over cases enumerated in Section 5 of P.D. 902-A was made to the RTCs in general, and not only in favor of particular RTC branches (Special Commercial Courts). (Concorde Condominium, Inc. v. Baculio, G.R. No. 203678, 17 February 2016)
| Gonzales v. GJH Land, Inc., En Banc (November 2015) |
| As a basic premise, let it be emphasized that a court’s acquisition of jurisdiction over a particular case’s subject matter is different from incidents pertaining to the exercise of its jurisdiction. Jurisdiction over the subject matter of a case is conferred by law, whereas a court’s exercise of jurisdiction, unless provided by the law itself is governed by the Rules of Court or by the orders issued from time to time by the Court. In Lozada v. Bracewell, it was recently held that the matter of whether the RTC resolves an issue in the exercise of its general jurisdiction or of its limited jurisdiction as a special court is only a matter of procedure and has nothing to do with the question of jurisdiction. |
| Pertinent to this case is RA 8799 which took effect on August 8, 2000. By virtue of said Jaw, jurisdiction over cases enumerated in Section 5 of Presidential Decree No. 902-A was transferred from the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to the RTCs, being courts of general jurisdiction. Item 5.2, Section 5 of RA 8799 provides: |
| SEC. 5. Powers and Functions of the Commission. – |
| x x x x |
| 5.2 The Commission’s jurisdiction over all cases enumerated under Section 5 of Presidential Decree No. 902-A is hereby transferred to the Courts of general jurisdiction or the appropriate Regional Trial Court: Provided, that the Supreme Court in the exercise of its authority may designate the Regional Trial Court branches that shall exercise ,jurisdiction over the cases. The Commission shall retain jurisdiction over pending cases involving intra-corporate disputes submitted for final resolution which should be resolved within one (1) year from the enactment of this code. The Commission shall retain jurisdiction over pending suspension of payment/rehabilitation cases filed as of 30 June 2000 until finally disposed. (Emphasis supplied) |
| The legal attribution of Regional Trial Court as courts of general Jurisdiction sterns from Section 19 (6) Chapter II or Batas Pambansa Bilang (BP) 129, known as “The Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980:” |
| Section 19. Jurisdiction in civil cases. – Regional Trial Courts shall exercise exclusive original jurisdiction: |
| x x x x |
| (6) In all cases not within the exclusive jurisdiction of any court, tribunal, person or body exercising judicial or quasijudicial functions: …. |
| As enunciated in Durisol Philippines, Inc. v. CA: |
| The regional trial court, formerly the court of first instance, is a court of general jurisdiction. All cases, the jurisdiction over which is not specifically provided for by law to be within the jurisdiction of any other court, fall under the jurisdiction of the regional trial court. |
| To clarify, the word “or” in Item 5.2, Section 5 of RA 8799 was intentionally used by the legislature to particularize the fact that the phrase “the Courts of general jurisdiction” is equivalent to the phrase “the appropriate Regional Trial Court.” In other words, the jurisdiction of the SEC over the cases enumerated under Section 5 PD 902-A was transferred to the courts of general jurisdiction, that is to say (or, otherwise known as), the proper Regional Trial Courts. This interpretation is supported by San Miguel Corp. v. Municipal Council, wherein the Court held that: |
| [T]he word “or” may be used as the equivalent of “that is to say” and gives that which precedes it the same significance as that which follows it. It is not always disjunctive and is sometimes interpretative or expository of the preceding word.q |
| Further, as may be gleaned from the following excerpt of the Congressional deliberations: |
| Senator [Raul S.] Roco: |
| x x x x The first major departure is as regards the Securities and Exchange Commission. The Securities and Exchange Commission has been authorized under this proposal to reorganize itself. As an administrative agency, we strengthened it and at the same time we take away the quasi-judicial functions. The quasi-judicial functions are not given back to the court of general jurisdiction – The Regional Trial Court, except for two categories of cases. |
| In the case of corporate disputes, only those that are now submitted for final determination of the SEC will remain with the SEC. So, all those cases, both memos of the plaintiff and the defendant, that have been submitted for resolution will continue. At the same time cases involving rehabilitation, bankruptcy, suspension of payments and receiverships that were filed before June 30, 2000 will continue with the SEC. In other words, we are avoiding the possibility, upon approval of this bill, of people filing cases with the SEC, in manner of speaking, to select their court. |
| x x x (Emphasis supplied) |
| Therefore, one must be disabused of the notion that the transfer of jurisdiction was made only in favor of particular RTC branches, and not the RTCs in general. |
b. SPECIAL JURISDICTION
1) Family Courts
| Jurisdiction of Family Courts: |
| The Family Courts shall have exclusive original jurisdiction to hear and decide the following cases: |
| 1) Criminal cases where one or more of the accused is below eighteen (18) years of age but not less than nine (9) years of age but not less than nine (9) years of age or where one or more of the victims is a minor at the time of the commission of the offense: Provided, That if the minor is found guilty, the court shall promulgate sentence and ascertain any civil liability which the accused may have incurred. |
| The sentence, however, shall be suspended without need of application pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 603, otherwise known as the “Child and Youth Welfare Code”; |
| 2) Petitions for guardianship, custody of children, habeas corpus in relation to the latter; |
| 3) Petitions for adoption of children and the revocation thereof; |
| 4) Complaints for annulment of marriage, declaration of nullity of marriage and those relating to marital status and property relations of husband and wife or those living together under different status and agreements, and petitions for dissolution of conjugal partnership of gains; |
| 5) Petitions for support and/or acknowledgment; |
| 6) Summary judicial proceedings brought under the provisions of Executive Order No. 209, otherwise known as the “Family Code of the Philippines”; |
| 7) Petitions for declaration of status of children as abandoned, dependent o neglected children, petitions for voluntary or involuntary commitment of children; the suspension, termination, or restoration of parental authority and other cases cognizable under Presidential Decree No. 603, Executive Order No. 56, (Series of 1986), and other related laws; |
| 8) Petitions for the constitution of the family home; |
| 9) Cases against minors cognizable under the Dangerous Drugs Act, as amended; |
| 10) Violations of Republic Act No. 7610, otherwise known as the “Special Protection of Children Against Child Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act,” as amended by Republic Act No. 7658; and |
| 11) Cases of domestic violence against: |
| a) Women – which are acts of gender based violence that results, or are likely to result in physical, sexual or psychological harm or suffering to women; and other forms of physical abuse such as battering or threats and coercion which violate a woman’s personhood, integrity and freedom movement; and |
| b) Children – which include the commission of all forms of abuse, neglect, cruelty, exploitation, violence, and discrimination and all other conditions prejudicial to their development. |
| If an act constitutes a criminal offense, the accused or batterer shall be subject to criminal proceedings and the corresponding penalties. |
| If any question involving any of the above matters should arise as an incident in any case pending in the regular courts, said incident shall be determined in that court. (Section 5, R.A. 8369) |
2) Commercial Courts
3. Exclusive vs. concurrent
a. EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION
| Jurisdiction. – The Court of Appeals shall exercise: |
| 1) Original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus, prohibition, certiorari, habeas corpus, and quo warranto, and auxiliary writs or processes, whether or not in aid of its appellate jurisdiction; |
| 2) Exclusive original jurisdiction over actions for annulment of judgements of Regional Trial Courts; and |
| 3) Exclusive appellate jurisdiction over all final judgements, resolutions, orders or awards of Regional Trial Courts and quasi-judicial agencies, instrumentalities, boards or commission, including the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Social Security Commission, the Employees Compensation Commission and the Civil Service Commission, Except those falling within the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in accordance with the Constitution, the Labor Code of the Philippines under Presidential Decree No. 442, as amended, the provisions of this Act, and of subparagraph (1) of the third paragraph and subparagraph 4 of the fourth paragraph od Section 17 of the Judiciary Act of 1948. |
| The court of Appeals shall have the power to try cases and conduct hearings, receive evidence and perform any and all acts necessary to resolve factual issues raised in cases falling within its original and appellate jurisdiction, including the power to grant and conduct new trials or Appeals must be continuous and must be completed within three (3) months, unless extended by the Chief Justice. (Section 9, B.P. 129, as amended by R.A. No. 7902.) |
| Jurisdiction in civil cases: Regional Trial Courts shall exercise exclusive original jurisdiction: |
| 1) In all civil actions in which the subject of the litigation is incapable of pecuniary estimation; |
| 2) In all civil actions which involve the title to, or possession of, real property, or any interest therein, where the assessed value exceeds Four hundred thousand pesos (P400,000.00), except for forcible entry into and unlawful detainer of lands or buildings, original jurisdiction over which is conferred upon the Metropolitan Trial Courts, and Municipal Trial Courts in Cities, Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts; |
| 3) In all actions in admiralty and maritime jurisdiction where the demand or claims exceeds Two million pesos (P2,000,000.00); |
| 4) In all matters of probate, both estate and intestate, where the gross value of the estate exceeds Two million pesos (P2,000,000.00); |
| 5) In all actions involving the contract of marriage and marital relations; |
| 6) In all cases not within the exclusive jurisdiction of any court, tribunal, person or body exercising jurisdiction of any court, tribunal, person or body exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions; |
| 7) In all civil actions and special proceedings falling within the exclusive original jurisdiction of a Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court and of the Court of Agrarian Relations as now provided by law; and |
| 8) In all other cases in which the demand, exclusive of interest, damages of whatever kind, attorney’s fees, litigation expenses and costs or the value of the property in controversy exceeds Two million pesos (P2,000,000.00). (Section 19, Ibid.) |
| Jurisdiction in criminal cases: |
| Regional Trial Courts shall exercise exclusive original jurisdiction in all criminal cases not within the exclusive jurisdiction of any court, tribunal or body, except those now falling under the exclusive and concurrent jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan which shall hereafter be exclusively taken cognizance of by the latter. (Section 20, Ibid.) |
| Special jurisdiction to try special cases: |
| The Supreme Court may designate certain branches of the Regional Trial Courts to handle exclusively criminal cases, juvenile and domestic relations cases, agrarian cases, urban land reform cases which do not fall under the jurisdiction of quasi-judicial bodies and agencies, and/or such other special cases as the Supreme Court may determine in the interest of a speedy and efficient administration of justice. (Section 23, Ibid.) |
| Jurisdiction of Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts in Criminal Cases: Except in cases falling within the exclusive original jurisdiction of Regional Trial Courts and of the Sandiganbayan, the Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts shall exercise: |
| 1) Exclusive original jurisdiction over all violations of city or municipal ordinances committed within their respective territorial jurisdiction; and |
| 2) Exclusive original jurisdiction over all offenses punishable with imprisonment not exceeding six (6) years irrespective of the amount of fine, and regardless of other imposable accessory or other penalties, including the civil liability arising from such offenses or predicated thereon, irrespective of kind, nature, value or amount thereof: Provided, however, That in offenses involving damage to property through criminal negligence, they shall have exclusive original jurisdiction thereof. (Section 32, Ibid.) |
| Jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts in Cities, Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts in Civil Cases: Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts in Cities, Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts shall exercise: |
| 1) Exclusive original jurisdiction over civil actions and probate proceedings, testate and intestate, including the grant of provisional remedies in proper cases, where the value of the personal property, estate, or amount of the demand does not exceed Two million pesos (P2,000,000.00), exclusive of interest, damages of whatever kind, attorney’s fees, litigation expenses, and costs, the amount of which must be specifically alleged: Provided, That interest, damages of whatever kind, attorney’s fees, litigation expenses, and costs shall be included in the determination of the filing fees: Provided, further, That where there are several claims or causes of actions between the same or different parties, embodied in the same complaint, the amount of the demand shall be totality of the claims in all the causes of action, irrespective of whether the causes of action arose out of the same or different transactions; |
| 2) Exclusive original jurisdiction over cases of forcible entry and unlawful detainer: Provided, That when, in such cases, the defendant raises the questions of ownership in his pleadings and the question of possession cannot be resolved without deciding the issue of ownership, the issue of ownership shall be resolved only to determine the issue of possession; and |
| 3) Exclusive original jurisdiction in all civil actions which involve title to, or possession of, real property, or any interest therein where the assessed value of the property or any interest therein does not exceed Four hundred thousand pesos (P400,000.00) exclusive on interest, damages of whatever kind, attorney’s fees, litigation expenses and costs: Provided, That in cases of land not declared for taxation purposes, the value of such property shall be determined by the assessed value of the adjacent lots; |
| 4) Exclusive original jurisdiction in admiralty and maritime actions where the demand or claim does not exceed Two million pesos (P2,000,000.00). (Section 33, Ibid.) |
| Jurisdiction of Family Courts: |
| The Family Courts shall have exclusive original jurisdiction to hear and decide the following cases: |
| 1) Criminal cases where one or more of the accused is below eighteen (18) years of age but not less than nine (9) years of age but not less than nine (9) years of age or where one or more of the victims is a minor at the time of the commission of the offense: Provided, That if the minor is found guilty, the court shall promulgate sentence and ascertain any civil liability which the accused may have incurred. |
| The sentence, however, shall be suspended without need of application pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 603, otherwise known as the “Child and Youth Welfare Code”; |
| 2) Petitions for guardianship, custody of children, habeas corpus in relation to the latter; |
| 3) Petitions for adoption of children and the revocation thereof; |
| 4) Complaints for annulment of marriage, declaration of nullity of marriage and those relating to marital status and property relations of husband and wife or those living together under different status and agreements, and petitions for dissolution of conjugal partnership of gains; |
| 5) Petitions for support and/or acknowledgment; |
| 6) Summary judicial proceedings brought under the provisions of Executive Order No. 209, otherwise known as the “Family Code of the Philippines”; |
| 7) Petitions for declaration of status of children as abandoned, dependent o neglected children, petitions for voluntary or involuntary commitment of children; the suspension, termination, or restoration of parental authority and other cases cognizable under Presidential Decree No. 603, Executive Order No. 56, (Series of 1986), and other related laws; |
| 8) Petitions for the constitution of the family home; |
| 9) Cases against minors cognizable under the Dangerous Drugs Act, as amended; |
| 10) Violations of Republic Act No. 7610, otherwise known as the “Special Protection of Children Against Child Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act,” as amended by Republic Act No. 7658; and |
| 11) Cases of domestic violence against: |
| a) Women – which are acts of gender based violence that results, or are likely to result in physical, sexual or psychological harm or suffering to women; and other forms of physical abuse such as battering or threats and coercion which violate a woman’s personhood, integrity and freedom movement; and |
| b) Children – which include the commission of all forms of abuse, neglect, cruelty, exploitation, violence, and discrimination and all other conditions prejudicial to their development. |
| If an act constitutes a criminal offense, the accused or batterer shall be subject to criminal proceedings and the corresponding penalties. |
| If any question involving any of the above matters should arise as an incident in any case pending in the regular courts, said incident shall be determined in that court. (Section 5, R.A. 8369) |
b. CONCURRENT JURISDICTION
4. Continuity of jurisdiction
Lorem ipsum
5. Original Jurisdiction of various Philippine courts
Lorem ipsum
6. Aspects of jurisdiction
a. Jurisdiction over the parties
b. Jurisdiction over the subject matter
c. Jurisdiction over the issues
d. Jurisdiction over the res or the property in litigation
7. Jurisdiction vs. exercise of jurisdiction
Lorem ipsum
8. Jurisdiction vs. Venue
Lorem ipsum
8. Jurisdiction over cases covered by Barangay Conciliation, Small Claims Cases and cases covered by Summary Procedure
a. BARANGAY CONCILIATION
| Cases not covered by the mandatory barangay conciliation: |
| 1) Where one party is the government, or any subdivision or instrumentality thereof; |
| 2) Where one party is a public officer or employee, and the dispute relates to the performance of his official functions; |
| 3) Where the dispute involves real properties located in different cities and municipalities, unless the parties thereto agree to submit their difference to amicable settlement by an appropriate Lupon; |
| 4) Any complaint by or against corporations, partnership or juridical entities, since only individuals shall be parties to Barangay conciliation proceedings either as complainants or respondents (Sec. 1 , Rule VI, Katarungang Pambarangay Rules); |
| 5) Disputes involving parties who actually reside in barangays of different cities or municipalities, except where such barangay units adjoin each other and the parties thereto agree to submit their differences to amicable settlement by an appropriate Lupon; |
| 6) Offenses for which the law prescribes a maximum penalty of imprisonment exceeding one (1) year or a fine over five thousand pesos (P5,000.00); |
| 7) Offenses where there is no private offended party; |
| 8) Disputes where urgent legal action is necessary to prevent injustice from being committed or further continued, specifically the following: |
| a) Criminal cases where accused is under police custody or detention (see Sec. 412 (b) (1), Revised Katarungang Pambarangay Law); |
| b) Petitions for habeas corpus by a person illegally deprived of his rightful custody over another or a person illegally deprived or on acting in his behalf; |
| c) Actions coupled with provisional remedies such as preliminary injunction, attachment, delivery of personal property and support during the pendency of the action; and |
| d) Actions which may be barred by the Statute of Limitations. |
| 9) Any class of disputes which the President may determine in the interest of justice or upon the recommendation of the Secretary of Justice; |
| 10) Where the dispute arises from the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL) (Sec. 46 & 47, R.A. 6657); |
| 11) Labor disputes or controversies arising from employer-employee relations (Montoya vs. Escayo, et al., 171 SCRA 442; Art. 226, Labor Code, as amended, which grants original and exclusive jurisdiction over conciliation and mediation of disputes, grievances or problems to certain offices of the Department of Labor and Employment); |
| 12) Actions to annul judgment upon a compromise which may be filed directly in court (See Sanchez vs. Tupaz, 158 SCRA 459). (Administrative Circular No. 14-9330;’ Section 408, R.A. 7160, Local Government Code) |
| Ngo v. Gabelo (August 2020) |
| Here, it is undisputed that Ngo failed to submit the matter to prior barangay conciliation before the filing of his complaint in court. Moreover, the case is not among those exempted from the requirement of prior conciliation. Gabelo, et al., timely and consistently raised such omission and vigorously invoked the dismissal of the complaint. All these circumstances justified the dismissal of Ngo’s complaint. |
| We thus quote with approval the findings of the CA, to wit: |
| Based on the aforecited provisions, all disputes between parties actually residing in the same city or municipality are subject to barangay conciliation. A prior recourse thereto is a pre-condition before filing a complaint in court or any government office. Non-compliance with the said condition precedent could affect the sufficiency of the plaintiff’s cause of action and make his complaint vulnerable to dismissal on ground of lack of cause of action or prematurity; but the same would not prevent a court of competent jurisdiction from exercising its power of adjudication over the case before it, where the defendants failed to object to such exercise of jurisdiction. |
| In the instant case, while no motion to dismiss was filed, the petitioners had been constantly pleading for dismissal of the case in their answer and their subsequent pleadings submitted to the lower court. This is allowed under Section 6, Rule 16 of the Rules of Court which provides that if no motion to dismiss has been filed, any grounds for dismissal provided for in the Rules may be pleaded as an affirmative defense in the answer and, in the discretion of the court, a preliminary hearing may be had thereon as if a motion to dismiss had been filed. |
| It is undisputed that the case was never referred to the Lupong Tagapayapa for conciliation.The petitioners successfully prevented the trial court from exercising jurisdiction over the case by timely invoking the ground in their answer as an affirmative defense. Thus, the complaint is dismissible for failure to comply with the mandatory requirement of barangay conciliation as a condition precedent before filing an action. |
| Finally, petitioner, at this juncture, argues that the issue was rendered moot due to the referral of the case to barangay conciliation proceedings and issuance of Certificate to File Action. However, a careful review of the said undated Certificate to File Action reveals that the same was irregularly issued as the same merely certified that: |
| 1) There has been a personal confrontation between the parties before the punong Barangay/Pangkat Tagapagkasundo; |
| 2) A settlement was reached; |
| 3) The settlement has been repudiated in a statement sworn to before the Punong barangay by _____ on ground on _____. |
| Therefore the corresponding complaint (sic) for the dispute may now be filed in Court/government office. |
| Verily, Ngo’s admission that none of the respondents appeared is materially inconsistent with the statement in the Certification that there has been personal confrontation between the parties. Moreover, based on the copy of the summons attached, only respondents Spouses Gabelo and Erlinda Abella were able to receive the same. The foregoing clearly does not satisfy the requirement of the law. Moreover, the Certification mentioned that a settlement has been reached by the parties. If this is so, then there would have been no need for referral of the matter to the court/government office, contrary to the statement in the Certification. |
Venue
| Venue: |
| 1) Disputes between persons actually residing in the same barangay shall be brought for amicable settlement before the lupon of said barangay. |
| 2) Those involving actual residents of different barangays within the same city or municipality shall be brought in the barangay where the respondent or any of the respondents actually resides, at the election of the complainant. |
| 3) All disputes involving real property or any interest therein shall be brought in the barangay where the real property or the larger portion thereof is situated. |
| 4) Those arising at the workplace where the contending parties are employed or at the institution where such parties are enrolled for study, shall be brought in the barangay where such workplace or institution is located. (Section 409, Ibid.) |
Objections
Objections to venue shall be raised in the mediation proceedings before the punong barangay; otherwise, the same shall be deemed waived. Any legal question which may confront the punong barangay in resolving objections to venue herein referred to may be submitted to the Secretary of Justice or his duly designated representative, whose ruling thereon shall be binding. (Paragraph 2, Section 409, Ibid.)
| Abagatnan v. Sps. Clarito (August 2017) |
| … as the RTC correctly pointed out, the lack of barangay conciliation proceedings cannot be brought on appeal because it was not included in the Pre-Trial Order, which only enumerates the following issues to be resolved during the trial: |
| The following issues to be resolved by plaintiffs: |
| 1. Whether or not the defendants have unlawfully withheld the portion of Lot 1472 over which were occupied by them, particularly Lot 1472-B; |
| 2. Whether or not the defendants can be lawfully ejected from that portion of Lot 1472-B which are occupied by them. |
| 3. Whether or not the prevailing parties can recover damages. |
| For the defendants, the issues to be resolved are as follows: |
| 1. Whether or not the plaintiffs have a cause of action for unlawful detainer against the defendants; and, |
| 2. Whether or not the prevailing parties are entitled to an award of damages. |
| On this point, it is important to stress that the issues to be tried between parties in a case is limited to those defined in the pre-trial order as well as those which may be implied from those written in the order or inferred from those listed by necessary implication. |
| In this case, a cursory reading of the issues listed in the Pre-Trial Order easily shows that the parties never agreed, whether expressly or impliedly, to include the lack of prior barangay conciliation proceedings in the list of issues to be resolved before the MTCC. |
| In effect, the non-inclusion of this issue in the Pre-Trial Order barred its consideration during the trial. This is but consistent with the rule that parties are bound by the delimitation of issues that they agreed upon during the pre-trial proceedings. |
Rationale
The primordial objective of a prior barangay conciliation is to reduce the number of court litigations and prevent the deterioration of the quality of justice which has been brought by the indiscriminate filing of cases in courts. Subject to certain exemptions,[29] a party’s failure to comply with this requirement before filing a case in court would render his complaint dismissible on the ground of failure to comply with a condition precedent [under the Rules of Court]. (Lansangan v.Caisip, G.R. No. 212987, 06 August 2018)
Waiver
Ordinarily, non-compliance with the condition precedent [of prior barangay conciliation] 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; but the same would not prevent a court of competent jurisdiction from exercising its power of adjudication over the case before it, where the defendants, as in this case, failed to object to such exercise of jurisdiction in their answer and even during the entire proceedings a quo. (Lansangan v.Caisip, supra.)
The non-referral of a case for barangay conciliation when so required under the law is not jurisdictional in nature, and may therefore be deemed waived if not raised seasonably in a motion to dismiss or in a responsive pleading. (Ibid.)
| Lansangan v.Caisip (August 2018) |
| Here, the ground of non-compliance with a condition precedent, i.e., undergoing prior barangay conciliation proceedings, was not invoked at the earliest opportunity, as in fact, respondent was declared in default for failure to file a responsive pleading despite due notice. Therefore, it was grave error for the courts a quo to order the dismissal of petitioner’s complaint on said ground. Hence, in order to rectify the situation, the Court finds it proper that the case be reinstated and remanded to the MCTC, which is the court of origin, for its resolution on the merits. |
| Aquino v. Aure (February 2008) |
| It is true that the precise technical effect of failure to comply with the requirement of Section 412 of the Local Government Code on barangay conciliation (previously contained in Section 5 of Presidential Decree No. 1508) is much the same effect produced by non-exhaustion of administrative remedies — the complaint becomes afflicted with the vice of pre-maturity; and the controversy there alleged is not ripe for judicial determination. The complaint becomes vulnerable to a motion to dismiss. Nevertheless, the conciliation process is not a jurisdictional requirement, so that non-compliance therewith cannot affect the jurisdiction which the court has otherwise acquired over the subject matter or over the person of the defendant. |
Procedure for amicable settlement
| Procedure for Amicable Settlement: |
| 1) Who may initiate proceeding – Upon payment of the appropriate filing fee, any individual who has a cause of action against another individual involving any matter within the authority of the lupon may complain, orally or in writing, to the lupon chairman of the barangay. |
| 2) Mediation by lupon chairman – Upon receipt of the complaint, the lupon chairman shall, within the next working day, summon the respondent(s), with notice to the complainant(s) for them and their witnesses to appear before him for a mediation of their conflicting interests. If he fails in his mediation effort within fifteen (15) days from the first meeting of the parties before him, he shall forthwith set a date for the constitution of the pangkat in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter. |
| 3) Suspension of prescriptive period of offenses – While the dispute is under mediation, conciliation, or arbitration, the prescriptive periods for offenses and cause of action under existing laws shall be interrupted upon filing of the complaint with the punong barangay. The prescriptive periods shall resume upon receipt by the complainant of the complaint or the certificate of repudiation or of the certification to file action issued by the lupon or pangkat secretary: Provided, however, That such interruption shall not exceed sixty (60) days from the filing of the complaint with the punong barangay. |
| 4) Issuance of summons; hearing; grounds for disqualification – The pangkat shall convene not later than three (3) days from its constitution, on the day and hour set by the lupon chairman, to hear both parties and their witnesses, simplify issues, and explore all possibilities for amicable settlement. For this purpose, the pangkat may issue summons for the personal appearance of parties and witnesses before it. In the event that a party moves to disqualify any member of the pangkat by reason of relationship, bias, interest, or any other similar grounds discovered after the constitution of the pangkat, the matter shall be resolved by the affirmative vote of the majority of the pangkat whose decision shall be final. Should disqualification be decided upon, the resulting vacancy shall be filled as herein provided for. |
| e) Period to arrive at a settlement – The pangkat shall arrive at a settlement or resolution of the dispute within fifteen (15) days from the day it convenes in accordance with this section. This period shall, at the discretion of the pangkat, be extendible for another period which shall not exceed fifteen (15) days, except in clearly meritorious cases. (Section 410, Ibid.) |
Form of Settlement
All amicable settlements shall be in writing, in a language or dialect known to the parties, signed by them, and attested to by the lupon chairman or the pangkat chairman, as the case may be. When the parties to the dispute do not use the same language or dialect, the settlement shall be written in the language known to them. (Section 411, Ibid.)
Conciliation
Pre-condition to Filing of Complaint in Court. – No complaint, petition, action, or proceeding involving any matter within the authority of the lupon shall be filed or instituted directly in court or any other government office for adjudication, unless there has been a confrontation between the parties before the lupon chairman or the pangkat, and that no conciliation or settlement has been reached as certified by the lupon secretary or pangkat secretary as attested to by the lupon or pangkat chairman or unless the settlement has been repudiated by the parties thereto. (Section 412[a], Ibid.)
| Lansangan v. Caisip (August 2018) |
| In this case, the motu proprio dismissal of the complaint was anchored on petitioner’s failure to refer the matter for barangay conciliation proceedings which in certain instances, is a condition precedent before filing a case in court. As Section 412 (a) of RA 7160 provides, the conduct of barangay conciliation proceedings is a pre-condition to the filing of a complaint involving any matter within the authority of the lupon x x x |
| x x x |
| … the non-referral of a case for barangay conciliation when so required under the law is not jurisdictional in nature, and may therefore be deemed waived if not raised seasonably in a motion to dismiss or in a responsive pleading. |
| Here, the ground of non-compliance with a condition precedent, i.e., undergoing prior barangay conciliation proceedings, was not invoked at the earliest opportunity, as in fact, respondent was declared in default for failure to file a responsive pleading despite due notice. Therefore, it was grave error for the courts a quo to order the dismissal of petitioner’s complaint on said ground. Hence, in order to rectify the situation, the Court finds it proper that the case be reinstated and remanded to the MCTC, which is the court of origin, for its resolution on the merits. |
Where Parties May Go Directly to Court
| Where Parties May Go Directly to Court: The parties may go directly to court in the following instances: |
| 1) Where the accused is under detention; |
| 2) Where a person has otherwise been deprived of personal liberty calling for habeas corpus proceedings; |
| 3) Where actions are 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. (Section 412[b], Ibid.) |
Conciliation Among Members of Indigenous Cultural Communities. The customs and traditions of indigenous cultural communities shall be applied in settling disputes between members of the cultural communities. (Section 412[c], Ibid.)
Arbitration
Agreement in writing. The parties may, at any stage of the proceedings, agree in writing that they shall abide by the arbitration award of the lupon chairman or the pangkat. Such agreement to arbitrate may be repudiated within five (5) days from the date thereof for the same grounds and in accordance with the procedure hereinafter prescribed. The arbitration award shall be made after the lapse of the period for repudiation and within ten (10) days thereafter.
Written in a language or dialect known to the parties. The arbitration award shall be in writing in a language or dialect known to the parties. When the parties to the dispute do not use the same language or dialect, the award shall be written in the language or dialect known to them. (Section 413, Ibid.)
Proceedings
| General Rule: All proceedings for settlement shall be public and informal. |
| Exception: … Provided, however, That the lupon chairman or the pangkat chairman, as the case may be, may motu proprio or upon request of a party, exclude the public from the proceedings in the interest of privacy, decency, or public morals. (Section 414, Ibid.) |
Appearance of Parties
In person appearance. In all katarungang pambarangay proceedings, the parties must appear in person without the assistance of counsel or representative, except for minors and incompetents who may be assisted by their next-of-kin who are not lawyers. (Section 415, Ibid.)
| Magno v. Velasco-Jacoba (November 2005) |
| The above-quoted provision clearly requires the personal appearance of the parties in katarungan pambarangay conciliation proceedings, unassisted by counsel or representative. The rationale behind the personal appearance requirement is to enable the lupon to secure first hand and direct information about the facts and issues,8 the exception being in cases where minors or incompetents are parties. There can be no quibbling that laymen of goodwill can easily agree to conciliate and settle their disputes between themselves without what sometimes is the unsettling assistance of lawyers whose presence could sometimes obfuscate and confuse issues.9 Worse still, the participation of lawyers with their penchant to use their analytical skills and legal knowledge tend to prolong instead of expedite settlement of the case. |
| The prohibition against the presence of a lawyer in a barangay conciliation proceedings was not, to be sure, lost on respondent. Her defense that the aforequoted Section 415 of the LGC does not apply since complainant addressed her Sumbong to the barangay captain of Brgy. San Pascual who thereafter proceeded to hear the same is specious at best. In this regard, suffice it to state that complainant wrote her Sumbong with the end in view of availing herself of the benefits of barangay justice. That she addressed her Sumbong to the barangay captain is really of little moment since the latter chairs the Lupong Tagapamayapa. |
| Lest it be overlooked, the prohibition in question applies to all katarungan barangay proceedings. Section 412(a)11 the LGC of 1991 clearly provides that, as a precondition to filing a complaint in court, the parties shall go through the conciliation process either before the lupon chairman or the lupon or pangkat. As what happened in this case, the punong barangay, as chairman of the Lupon Tagapamayapa, conducted the conciliation proceedings to resolve the disputes between the two parties. |
Amicable settlement, arbitration award
Effect of amicable settlement and arbitration award. The amicable settlement and arbitration award shall have the force and effect of a final judgment of a court upon the expiration of ten (10) days from the date thereof, unless repudiation of the settlement has been made or a petition to nullify the award has been filed before the proper city or municipal court. (Section 416, Ibid.)
However, this provision shall not apply to court cases settled by the lupon under the last paragraph of Section 408 of this Code, in which case the compromise settlement agreed upon by the parties before the lupon chairman or the pangkat chairman shall be submitted to the court and upon approval thereof, have the force and effect of a judgment of said court. (Paragraph 2, Section 416, Ibid.)
Execution
The amicable settlement or arbitration award may be enforced by execution by the lupon within six (6) months from the date of the settlement. After the lapse of such time, the settlement may be enforced by action in the appropriate city or municipal court. (Section 417, Ibid.)
Repudiation
Any party to the dispute may, within ten (10) days from the date of the settlement, repudiate the same by filing with the lupon chairman a statement to that effect sworn to before him, where the consent is vitiated by fraud, violence, or intimidation. Such repudiation shall be sufficient basis for the issuance of the certification for filing a complaint as hereinabove provided. (Section 418, Ibid.)
Transmittal of settlement and arbitration award to the court
The secretary of the lupon shall transmit the settlement or the arbitration award to the appropriate city or municipal court within five (5) days from the date of the award or from the lapse of the ten-day period repudiating the settlement and shall furnish copies thereof to each of the parties to the settlement and the lupon chairman. (Section 419, Ibid.)
Power to administer oaths
The punong barangay, as chairman of the lupong tagapamayapa, and the members of the pangkat are hereby authorized to administer oaths in connection with any matter relating to all proceedings in the implementation of the katarungang pambarangay. (Section 420, Ibid.)
