G.R. No. 111416 September 26, 1994
FELICIDAD UY, petitioner, vs. HON. MAXIMO C. CONTRERAS, Presiding Judge, Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch 61, Makati, Metro Manila; HON. MAURO M. CASTRO, Provincial Prosecutor of Pasig, Metro Manila; SUSANNA ATAYDE and WINNIE JAVIER, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Felicidad Uy subleased premises from respondent Susanna Atayde in Makati. After the sublease expired on April 15, 1993, an argument arose on April 17, 1993, when Uy attempted to retrieve her remaining properties, leading to a scuffle between Uy and Atayde and her employees, including respondent Winnie Javier. On April 23, 1993, the private respondents filed complaints with the barangay captain of Valenzuela, Makati (Barangay Cases Nos. 1023 and 1024). A confrontation was scheduled for April 28, 1993, but only Uy appeared; it was reset to May 26, 1993. However, on May 11, 1993, the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor filed two Informations for slight physical injuries against Uy with the Metropolitan Trial Court (MTC) of Makati (Criminal Cases Nos. 145233 and 145234). Uy filed a motion to dismiss these criminal cases, arguing that the private respondents failed to comply with the mandatory prior referral to the Lupong Tagapamayapa as required by P.D. No. 1508 (now embodied in the Local Government Code of 1991) and Section 18 of the 1991 Revised Rule on Summary Procedure. The MTC, through respondent Judge Maximo C. Contreras, denied the motion to dismiss, reasoning that Uy had waived the right to conciliation, the parties were residents of different barangays, the offense occurred in Makati, and the offense was about to prescribe. Uy’s motion for reconsideration was also denied.

ISSUE

Whether the Metropolitan Trial Court committed grave abuse of discretion in denying the motion to dismiss Criminal Cases Nos. 145233 and 145234 for slight physical injuries due to non-compliance with the mandatory prior referral to the Lupong Tagapamayapa for conciliation under the Katarungang Pambarangay Law.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court granted the petition, set aside the MTC orders, and directed the dismissal of the criminal cases. The Court held that prior referral for amicable settlement is a mandatory precondition for filing actions cognizable by the lupon under the Local Government Code of 1991 ( R.A. No. 7160 ), which repealed P.D. No. 1508. The law requires that disputes between parties actually residing in the same city or municipality must first be brought before the lupon for amicable settlement, with certain exceptions not applicable here. The filing of the criminal cases on May 11, 1993, was premature because the barangay conciliation process, initiated on April 23, 1993, was still ongoing and had not been terminated by the issuance of a certification to file action. The fact that the private respondents failed to appear at the scheduled barangay confrontation did not justify bypassing the process. The MTC’s reasons for denial—alleged waiver by the accused, residence in different barangays, venue of the offense, and impending prescription—were erroneous. The prescriptive period for the offense was interrupted upon the filing of the barangay complaint. Therefore, the respondent judge acted with grave abuse of discretion in refusing to dismiss the cases for non-compliance with the Katarungang Pambarangay Law.