1MORATA vs. GO

G.R. No.
L-62339 October 27, 1983
SPOUSES MARIA LUISA P. MORATA AND JULIUS MORATA, petitioners,

vs.
SPOUSES VICTOR GO and FLORA C. GO and HON. VALERIANO P. TOMOL, JR., Judge, Court of
First Instance of Cebu, Branch XI, respondents.
FACTS
respondents Victor Go and Flora D. Go filed in the defunct Court of First Instance of Cebu, a complaint
against petitioners Julius Morata and Ma. Luisa Morata for recovery of a sum of money plus damages
petitioners filed a motion to dismiss, citing as grounds therefor, the failure of the complaint to allege prior
availment by the plaintiffs of the barangay conciliation process required by P.D. 1508
respondent judge issued an order denying the motion to dismiss.
ISSUE
WON PD 1508 on conciliation process is applicable in this case – YES
HELD
We find the petition impressed with merit
Section 6 of P.D. 1508 reads as follows:
SECTION 6. Conciliation pre-condition to filing of complaint.— No complaint, petition, action for

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.
However, the parties may go directly to court in the following cases:
[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
Section 2 of the law defines the scope of authority of the Lupon thus:
SECTION 2. Subject matters for amicable settlement.—The Lupon of each barangay shall have
authority to bring together the parties actually residing in the same city or municipality for
amicable settlement of all disputes except:
[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] Offenses punishable by imprisonment exceeding 30 days, or a fine exceeding P200.00;
[4] Offenses where there is no private offended party;
[5] Such other classes of disputes which the Prime Minister may in the interest of justice
determine upon recommendation of the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Local Government.
Thus, except in the instances enumerated in sections 2 and 6 of the law, the Lupon has the authority to
settle amicably all types of disputes involving parties who actually reside in the same city or municipality.
The law, as written, makes no distinction whatsoever with respect to the classes of civil disputes that
should be compromised at the barangay level, in contradistinction to the limitation imposed upon the
Lupon by paragraph (3), section 2 thereof as regards its authority over criminal cases.
It must be borne in mind that the conciliation process at the barangay level is likewise designed to
discourage indiscriminate filing of cases in court in order to decongest its clogged dockets and, in the
process, enhance the quality of justice dispensed by it. Thus, to say that the authority of the Lupon is
limited to cases exclusively cognizable by the inferior courts is to lose sight of this objective
The objectives of the law are set forth in its preamble thus:
WHEREAS, the perpetuation and official recognition of the time-honored tradition of amicably
settling disputes among family and barangay level without judicial resources would promote the
speedy administration of justice and implement the constitutional mandate to preserve and
develop Filipino culture and to strengthen the family as a basic social institution;
WHEREAS, the indiscriminate filing of cases in the courts of justice contributes heavily and unjustifiably to
the congestion of court dockets
These objectives would only be half-met and easily thwarted if the Lupon's authority is exercised only in
cases falling within the exclusive jurisdiction of inferior courts.
Moreover, if it is the intention of the law to restrict its coverage only to cases cognizable by the inferior
courts, then it would not have provided in Section 3 thereof the following rule on Venue, to wit:
Section 3. Venue. ... However, all disputes which involve real property or any interest therein shall
be brought in the Barangay where the real property or and part thereof is situated.
But it is pointed out by the respondent judge that Sections 11, 3 12, 4 and 14, 5 of the law speak of the city
and/or municipal courts as the forum for the nullification or execution of the settlement or arbitration award
issued by the Lupon. We hold that this circumstance cannot be construed as a limitation of the scope of
authority of the Lupon. As heretofore stated, the authority of the Lupon is clearly established in Section 2
of the law; whereas Sections 11, 12 and 14, relied upon by respondent judge, deal with the nullification or
execution of the settlement or arbitration awards obtained at the barangay level
We now declare that the conciliation process at the barangay level, prescribed by P.D. 1508 as a
pre-condition for filing a complaint in court, is compulsory not only for cases falling under the
exclusive competence of the metropolitan and municipal trial courts, but for actions cognizable by
the regional trial courts as well.

1MORATA vs. GO

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

1MORATA vs. GO

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

G.R. No.

L-62339 October 27, 1983

SPOUSES MARIA LUISA P. MORATA AND JULIUS MORATA, petitioners,

respondent judge issued an order denying the motion to dismiss.

WON PD 1508 on conciliation process is applicable in this case – YES

Section 6 of P.D. 1508 reads as follows:

SECTION 6. Conciliation pre-condition to filing of complaint.— No complaint, petition, action for

[1] Where the accused is under detention;

[3] Offenses punishable by imprisonment exceeding 30 days, or a fine exceeding P200.00;

[4] Offenses where there is no private offended party;

You might also like