Don’t go to court without barangay confrontation

That a condition precedent for filing the claim has not been complied with is a ground to throw a case out of court. Section 1, Rule 16 of the Rules of Court provides for the grounds that may be raised in a motion to dismiss a complaint, to wit:

Section 1. Grounds. – Within the time for but before filing the answer to the complaint or pleading asserting a claim, a motion to dismiss may be made on any of the following grounds:

(a) That the court has no jurisdiction over the person of the defending party;
(b) That the court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the claim;
(c) That venue is improperly laid;
(d) That the plaintiff has no legal capacity to sue;
(e) That there is another action pending between the same parties for the same cause;
(f) That the cause of action is barred by a prior judgment or by the statute of limitations;
(g) That the pleading asserting the claim states no cause of action;
(h) That the claim or demand set forth in the plaintiff's pleading has been paid, waived, abandoned, or otherwise extinguished;
(i) That the claim on which the action is founded is unenforceable under the provisions of the statute of frauds; and
(j) That a condition precedent for filing the claim has not been complied with.

As a general rule, the above-listed grounds must be invoked by the party-litigant at the earliest opportunity, as in a motion to dismiss or in the answer; otherwise, such grounds are deemed waived. As an exception, however, the courts may order the motu proprio dismissal of a case on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter, litis pendentia, res judicata, and prescription of action, pursuant to Section 1, Rule 9 of the Rules of Court, which reads:

Section 1. Defenses and objections not pleaded. — Defenses and objections not pleaded either in a motion to dismiss or in the answer are deemed waived. However, when it appears from the pleadings or the evidence on record that the court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter, that there is another action pending between the same parties for the same cause, or that the action is barred by a prior judgment or by statute of limitations, the court shall dismiss the claim.

In Lansangan v. Caisip,[8] the Supreme Court found that 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, to wit:

Section 412. Conciliation. — (a) 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.

Under Section 409 (a) of RA 7160, "[d]isputes between persons actually residing in the same barangay [(as in the parties in this case)] shall be brought for amicable settlement before the lupon of said barangay.Lifted from Presidential Decree No. 1508,[1] otherwise known as the "Katarungang Pambarangay Law," 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 exceptions,[2] 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, pursuant to Section 1 (j), Rule 16 of the Rules of Court.[3]

Notably, in Aquino v. Aure,[4] the Court clarified that such conciliation process is not a jurisdictional requirement, such 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,[4] viz.:

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.[5]

Similarly, in Banares II v. Balising,[6] it was mentioned that 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.[7]

In Lansangan v. Caisip,[8] 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 would be grave error for a trial court to order the dismissal of the complaint based on non-compliance with the requirement of barangay confrontation, considering that the other party has already been declared in default.

---

[1] Entitled "ESTABLISHING A SYSTEM OF AMICABLY SETTLING DISPUTES AT THE BARANGAY LEVEL," approved on June 11, 1978.
[29] See Sections 408 and 412 (b) of RA 7160.
[2] See Aquino v. Aure, 569 Phil. 403 (2008).
[3] Id.
[4] Id. at 416, citing Presco v. CA, 270 Phil. 322, 332 (1990).
[5] Id. at 417, citing Royales v. Intermediate Appellate Court, 212 Phil. 432, 435-436 (1984).
[6] 384 Phil. 567 (2000).
[7] Id. at 583 (2000); citations omitted.
[8] Lansangan v. Caisip. G.R. No. 212987. August 06, 2018.