Professional Documents
Culture Documents
01 - Ngo v. Gabelo
01 - Ngo v. Gabelo
DECISION
HERNANDO, J : p
The trial court held that, considering that Ngo admitted that the case
did not undergo the required barangay conciliation proceedings before it was
filed with the court, the complaint should be dismissed accordingly for lack
of cause of action. Necessarily, the trial court was empowered to motu
proprio dismiss the complaint for Ngo's failure to comply with the rules. 12
Ngo filed his Motion for Reconsideration 13 and alleged that while the
trial court indeed had the power to dismiss the complaint due to his failure to
refer the case to barangay conciliation, the RTC also had the discretion to
simply suspend the proceedings and to refer the case to barangay
conciliation instead of dismissing outright the complaint. 14
Persuaded by Ngo's arguments, the RTC in its Order 15 dated April 5,
2010 granted the supplication of Ngo. The dispositive portion of the Order
reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the plaintiff's subject
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION is hereby GRANTED and the Order of
this Court dated April 17, 2009 in so far as it ordered the dismissal of
the Complaint for lack of cause of action for the plaintiff's failure to
comply with the Barangay law requirements is hereby reconsidered
and set aside.
Accordingly, the Complaint in this case is hereby reinstated and
this case is hereby referred to the Barangay Court/authorities
concerned where the herein parties are directed to undergo the
proper Barangay conciliation proceedings.
In the meanwhile, the proceedings in this Court are hereby
suspended pending the submission of this Court of the corresponding
Barangay Certification/Report with regard to the result of said
Barangay proceedings.
SO ORDERED. 16
Unsatisfied with the ruling of the CA, Ngo filed his Motion for
Reconsideration 23 but it was denied by the appellate court. 24 Hence, this
Petition for Review on Certiorari before this Court.
Our Ruling
The petition is denied.
Ngo asserts that the CA erred in nullifying the Orders of the RTC and in
dismissing the complaint for recovery and possession of property because of
his failure to comply with the barangay conciliation requirement. He argues
that the CA failed to apply this Court's ruling in Sps. Santos v. Sps. Lumbao
25 which provided that failing to file a Motion to Dismiss on account of failure
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. 36 However, a careful review of the said
undated Certificate to File Action 37 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
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
office, contrary to the statement in the Certification.
Finally, petitioner cites the case of Bonifacio Law Office v. Bellosillo 38
where this Court allegedly pronounced that suspending a case and referring
the same to the barangay for conciliation was not an abuse of discretion on
the part of the trial court. Hence, the RTC was correct in doing so in the case
at bar. 39 This argument fails to persuade. In the instant case, there is a
complete failure on the part of Ngo to refer the case to the barangay for prior
conciliation. The cited case is not on all fours with the case at bar because
there was a prior barangay conciliation therein but the trial court merely
referred it back for completion. The relevant findings of the Court in said
case held that:
Evidently, the barangay failed to exert enough effort required
by law to conciliate between the parties and to settle the case before
it. Hence, respondent judge was not incorrect in remanding the case
to it for completion of the mandated proceedings. We cannot fault
him for seeking to promote the objectives of barangay conciliation
and for taking to heart the provisions of Supreme Court Circular No.
14-93. His referral of the case back to the barangay cannot be
equated with gross ignorance of the law. Neither does it constitute
grave abuse of discretion or obvious partiality. 40
All told, this Court finds no reason to overturn the ruling of the CA as to
its finding that the RTC gravely abused its discretion in remanding the case
for barangay conciliation and for revoking the dismissal of the complaint. All
the substantive and procedural issues raised in this Petition were squarely
addressed in the assailed judgment of the appellate court in accordance with
law and existing jurisprudence and with due regard to extant facts and
evidence.
WHEREFORE, the Petition for Review on Certiorari is hereby DENIED,
there being no reversible error on the part of the Court of Appeals. The
January 8, 2013 Decision and June 19, 2013 Resolution of the Court of
Appeals in CA-G.R. S.P. No. 117120 are AFFIRMED. Costs on petitioner.
SO ORDERED.
Perlas-Bernabe, Inting and Delos Santos, JJ., concur.
Baltazar-Padilla, J., is on official leave.
Footnotes
* Also spelled as Ulysis in some parts of the records.
** Also spelled as Susan in some parts of the records.
1. Rollo , pp. 3-14.
2. Id. at 19-25; penned by Associate Justice Amelita G. Tolentino and concurred in
by Associate Justices Ramon R. Garcia and Danton Q. Bueser.
3. Id. at 26-27.
4. Id. at 109-110; penned by Judge Marcelino L. Sayo, Jr.