G.R. No. 80264 May 31, 1989
SAN MIGUEL VILLAGE SCHOOL, petitioner, vs. HONORABLE AMIR PUKUNUM D. PUNDOGAR and CHRISTINA TRIÑO, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner San Miguel Village School filed a complaint for breach of contract against respondent Christina Triño after she abandoned her teaching position without notice. Along with the complaint, petitioner filed a Certificate to File Action from the Barangay Captain of Palao, Iligan City, stating that the respondent “cannot be contacted.” Summons was served, and upon Triño’s failure to answer, the trial court declared her in default, received evidence ex parte, and rendered a decision awarding damages to the school.
Four months after the decision, Triño filed a Petition for Relief from Judgment, arguing the trial court lacked jurisdiction because the mandatory barangay conciliation under P.D. No. 1508 was not complied with. She claimed the certification was invalid as she was a resident of Barangay Tomas Cabili, not Barangay Palao. The new presiding judge, respondent Amir Pukunum D. Pundogar, granted the petition, set aside the original decision, and ruled the court acted without jurisdiction due to non-compliance with the conciliation requirement.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court lacked jurisdiction to render its decision due to alleged non-compliance with the barangay conciliation procedure under P.D. No. 1508.

RULING

The Supreme Court reversed the orders of respondent Judge Pundogar and reinstated the original decision. The Court held that failure to comply with the conciliation procedure under P.D. No. 1508 is not a jurisdictional defect that deprives a court of its authority over the subject matter or the parties. Such non-compliance merely affects the sufficiency or ripeness of the cause of action, making the complaint vulnerable to a motion to dismiss for lack of cause of action or prematurity, not for lack of jurisdiction. Respondent Judge was therefore in palpable error in nullifying the decision on jurisdictional grounds.
Furthermore, the Certificate to File Action issued by the Barangay Captain of Palao, indicating the respondent “cannot be contacted,” constituted sufficient compliance. The barangay authorities are presumed to have performed their duties regularly, including sending notice. The respondent’s failure to appear before the Lupon cannot be used to frustrate the law’s intent. Critically, any defense of non-compliance with P.D. No. 1508 must be raised timely, such as in a motion to dismiss or an answer. By being declared in default and not having that order set aside, private respondent waived this defense, as well as her right to appear and present other defenses. It is too late to raise this procedural objection after a default judgment on the merits has been rendered.