G.R. No. 120567 - Philippine Airlines, Inc. vs. National Labor Relations Commission

Petitioner Gaudencio Guerrero filed an accion publiciana against private respondent Pedro G. Hernando seeking recovery of Lot No. 15731 of the Sarrat Cadastre, Ilocos Norte, along with damages.
The case initially assumed an additional dimension when procedural requirements under the Family Code and Rules of Court regarding suits between family members became implicated.

At the pre-trial conference on December 7, 1992, respondent Judge Luis B. Bello, Jr. noted that Guerrero and Hernando were brothers-in-law – each being married to half-sisters.
Based on the noted familial relationship, the judge ordered Guerrero to file, within five (5) days, a motion and amended complaint clearly alleging that:

The parties were very close relatives (by virtue of their wives being sisters), and
Earnest efforts toward a compromise had been made but ultimately failed, as is required when litigating cases involving members of the same family.

Despite the fact that the original complaint did not allege the necessary "earnest efforts toward a compromise," private respondent did not initially challenge this issue through a motion to dismiss or by raising it in his answer.
On December 11, 1992, Guerrero moved to reconsider the December 7 order arguing:

That as brothers by affinity (and not by consanguinity), the parties should not be considered “members of the same family” for purposes of requiring compromise efforts; and
That Hernando was precluded from asserting this defense since he had not timely raised it.

On December 22, 1992, the judge denied Guerrero’s motion, holding that the failure to allege that earnest efforts toward a compromise had been made was jurisdictional, and warned that failure to amend the complaint within the prescribed period would result in dismissal.
On January 29, 1993, after the five-day period expired without an amended complaint being filed, the trial court dismissed the case without prejudice.

The Family Code (Art. 151) mandates that no suit between members of the same family shall prosper unless the verified complaint or petition shows that earnest efforts toward a compromise have been made and have failed.
The Rules of Court (Sec. 1, par. (j), Rule 16) similarly require the allegation of compromise efforts as a condition before such suits may be maintained.
Prior jurisprudence (e.g., Gayon v. Gayon) has held that the enumeration of “brothers and sisters” as members of the family does not extend to include brothers-in-law (or sisters-in-law).

Whether brothers by affinity (brothers-in-law) are to be considered members of the same family as contemplated by:

Article 217 and Article 222 of the New Civil Code, and
Section 1, paragraph (j) of Rule 16 of the Rules of Court, which obligates the parties to demonstrate that earnest efforts toward a compromise have been made before initiating the suit.

Whether the absence in the complaint of allegations that earnest efforts toward a compromise were made – and that such efforts had failed – constitutes a ground for dismissal for lack of jurisdiction.
Whether such a defect, even when not timely raised by the respondent in his answer or through a motion to dismiss, is nevertheless fatal to the suit.