GR 128734; (September, 1999) (Digest)
G.R. No. 128734 . September 14, 1999.
ANGEL L. BOLEYLEY, petitioner, vs. HON. CLARENCE J. VILLANUEVA, Presiding Judge, Branch 7, Regional Trial Court, Baguio City, and ALBERT S. SURLA, respondents.
FACTS
On August 7, 1996, petitioner Angel L. Boleyley filed a complaint for collection of a sum of money against private respondent Albert S. Surla with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Baguio City. The complaint sought actual, moral, and exemplary damages, attorney’s fees, and costs. In the complaint, petitioner alleged he was a resident of Baguio City, while the defendant (private respondent) had a “postal office address” in Baguio City. On September 13, 1996, private respondent filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that petitioner failed to refer the dispute to the barangay lupon for conciliation as required by the Revised Katarungan Pambarangay Law. Petitioner opposed the motion, arguing that private respondent was not a resident of Baguio City, thus the dispute was excepted from the barangay conciliation requirement. The RTC granted the motion to dismiss on November 29, 1996, and denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration on February 17, 1997. Hence, this petition for certiorari.
ISSUE
Whether or not petitioner was bound to refer the dispute to the barangay lupon for conciliation before filing an action in court.
RULING
The Supreme Court GRANTED the petition. The Court ruled that there was no need for prior referral to the barangay lupon. Jurisdiction over the subject matter is determined by the allegations in the complaint. The complaint alleged that the plaintiff (petitioner) was a resident of Baguio City, while the defendant (private respondent) had a postal office address in Baguio City. These allegations clearly implied that the parties did not reside in the same city or municipality, which is an exception to the barangay conciliation requirement under the law. The defense raised in the motion to dismiss regarding residency is not determinative of jurisdiction. Consequently, the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the complaint for prematurity. The orders of the RTC were annulled, and the trial court was ordered to deny the motion to dismiss and proceed with the case.