Case Digest (G.R. No. 111416-17)
Facts:
Felicidad Uy v. Hon. Maximo C. Contreras, G.R. Nos. 111416-17, September 26, 1994, Supreme Court First Division, Davide, Jr., J., writing for the Court. The petition for certiorari was filed under Rule 65 challenging an MTC order denying a motion to dismiss two informations for slight physical injuries.Petitioner Felicidad Uy had subleased part of a second-floor premises in Makati from Susanna Atayde and operated a beauty parlor there. The sublease expired on 15 April 1993, and on 17 April 1993 a confrontation occurred when petitioner tried to remove remaining movable property; the scuffle involved Atayde and some employees including Winnie Javier.
On 21 April 1993 the private respondents obtained medical examinations; on 23 April 1993 they filed complaints with the barangay captain of Valenzuela, Makati (Barangay Cases Nos. 1023 and 1024). The barangay scheduled a confrontation for 28 April 1993, at which only petitioner appeared, and reset the confrontation to 26 May 1993.
Despite the pending barangay proceedings, the Provincial Prosecutor of Rizal filed two informations for slight physical injuries before the Metropolitan Trial Court (MTC), Makati, Branch 61, on 11 May 1993 (Criminal Cases Nos. 145233 and 145234). The MTC ordered counter-affidavits; petitioner filed them on 14 June 1993 and attached a barangay certification dated 18 May 1993 stating there was an ongoing conciliation. On 18 June 1993 petitioner moved to dismiss for failure to comply with the barangay-conciliation requirement under P.D. No. 1508 and Section 18 of the 1991 Revised Rule on Summary Procedure. On 2 July 1993 Judge Maximo C. Contreras denied the motion, finding waiver and that the cases were about to prescribe; a motion for reconsideration was denied on 5 August 1993.
Petitioner sought relief from the Court by Rule 65 certiorari, alleging grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction. The Office of the Solicitor General supported dismissal f...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the respondent judge commit grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in denying the motion to dismiss for failure to comply with the barangay conciliation requirement?
- Was the filing of complaints with the barangay on 23 April 1993 sufficient to suspend the prescriptive period so that the private respondents could not properly invoke the exception permitting immediate court filing where the action ...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)