G.R. No. 96914 July 23, 1992
CECILIA U. LEDESMA, petitioner, vs. THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS, and JOSE T. DIZON, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Cecilia U. Ledesma is the owner-lessor of an apartment building in Malate, Manila, two units of which were leased to private respondent Jose T. Dizon. The written contracts of lease dated December 10, 1984, were impliedly renewed on a month-to-month basis. Private respondent violated the terms by incurring rental arrears totaling P14,039.00 as of October 31, 1988. Demand letters were sent. Upon private respondent’s failure to comply, petitioner referred the matter to the Barangay for conciliation, which issued a certification to file action. Petitioner was assisted by her son, Raymond U. Ledesma (who is not a lawyer), during the barangay proceeding, claiming she was suffering from a recurring psychological and emotional ailment. Petitioner then filed an ejectment complaint with the Metropolitan Trial Court (MTC) of Manila. The MTC ruled in favor of petitioner, ordering private respondent to vacate, pay rentals, and pay attorney’s fees. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) affirmed the MTC ruling but reduced the attorney’s fees. On Petition for Review, the Court of Appeals reversed the RTC and dismissed the ejectment complaint for lack of cause of action due to petitioner’s non-compliance with Sections 6 and 9 of P.D. 1508 (Katarungang Pambarangay Law).

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the ejectment complaint for lack of cause of action due to petitioner’s non-compliance with the mandatory conciliation requirements under Sections 6 and 9 of P.D. 1508.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals. The Court held that the issue of non-compliance with Sections 6 and 9 of P.D. 1508 was properly raised by private respondent in his Answer before the MTC, specifically alleging he was never summoned by the Barangay Chairman and that the certification to file action was improperly issued. The Court found that petitioner failed to comply with Section 6, which requires a confrontation of the parties before the Lupon as a precondition to filing a complaint, and Section 9, which mandates that parties must appear in person without the assistance of counsel or representative, except for minors and incompetents. The documentary evidence showed that it was petitioner’s son, Raymond U. Ledesma, and her lawyer who dealt with the barangay, and the Certification to File Action listed Raymond as the complainant. Petitioner’s claim of psychological ailment was unsupported for the relevant period (1988), and she, not being a minor or incompetent, could not be represented. Non-compliance with these mandatory provisions legally barred petitioner from pursuing the ejectment case in court. The other assignments of error were not discussed as they were rendered moot.