G.R. No. L-69334. July 28, 1986.
SERVILLANO ALINSUGAY, petitioner, vs. HON. PERFECTO M. CAGAMPANG, JR., Presiding Judge, RTC, Bukidnon, ESTHER G. CAJES and RICARDO M. CAJES, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Servillano Alinsugay filed a complaint for annulment of title and recovery of possession and ownership of land in the Regional Trial Court of Bukidnon against respondents Esther and Ricardo Cajes. The respondents moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that the court lacked jurisdiction because the dispute was not referred for amicable settlement to the Pangkat ng Tagapagkasundo under Presidential Decree No. 1508 (the Katarungang Pambarangay Law) after mediation before the barangay chairman failed. The respondent judge granted the motion and dismissed the case without prejudice for non-compliance with P.D. 1508.
The controversy had, in fact, been brought before the Punong Barangay. It was docketed as Barangay Case No. 26, and summons were served. However, respondent Esther Cajes failed to appear. Consequently, the Punong Barangay issued a “certification to file action,” attested by the Barangay Secretary, stating that Cajes wilfully failed to appear, and thus the corresponding complaint may now be filed in court. Petitioner argued this certification constituted substantial compliance with the law.

ISSUE

Whether referral of the dispute to the Pangkat ng Tagapagkasundo is mandatory under P.D. 1508 when conciliation at the barangay level fails due to the willful non-appearance of one party.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the petitioner, setting aside the order of dismissal. The Court held that the issuance of the certification to file action by the Punong Barangay was proper and constituted compliance with the condition precedent for filing a court action under P.D. 1508.
The legal logic is anchored on the specific provisions of the Katarungang Pambarangay Implementing Rules. Rule VI, Section 7 explicitly provides that the willful failure or refusal of a respondent to appear after due notice is a sufficient basis for the issuance of a certification allowing the complainant to file an action in court. The Court reasoned that the mandatory referral to the Pangkat, as outlined in Section 4(b) of P.D. 1508, presupposes that both parties have submitted themselves to the conciliation process before the Lupon. The procedure requiring the constitution of a Pangkat after the Punong Barangay’s failed mediation is intended for cases where both parties participate but no settlement is reached.
Where one party willfully fails to appear without justifiable reason, convening the Pangkat would be a futile exercise, as it reflects an unwillingness to settle the dispute amicably outside of court. The law should not be interpreted to allow a party to frustrate the conciliation process by their own unjustified absence and then later invoke that same failure to dismiss a judicial action. The respondent judge therefore acted with grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the complaint. The certification issued was valid, and the case should proceed to trial on the merits.