Case Summary (G.R. No. 189028)
Petition and Relief Sought
Petitioner filed a complaint in the Regional Trial Court, Baguio City, for collection of money: P530,000.00 actual damages; P50,000.00 moral damages; P30,000.00 exemplary damages; P30,000.00 attorneys’ fees plus P1,000.00 per hearing; and costs of suit. After the RTC granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint as prematurely filed for lack of prior barangay referral, petitioner sought relief from the Supreme Court by way of certiorari to annul the RTC’s orders.
Procedural History
- August 7, 1996: Complaint filed in RTC.
- September 13, 1996: Defendant moved to dismiss, alleging noncompliance with barangay conciliation requirement.
- September 17, 1996: Plaintiff opposed, asserting the defendant was not a resident of Baguio City and thus the barangay lupon had no authority.
- November 29, 1996: Trial court issued an order dismissing the complaint as premature for failure to refer the case to the barangay lupon.
- December 5, 1996: Plaintiff moved for reconsideration alleging defendant’s non-residence in Baguio City.
- February 17, 1997: Motion for reconsideration denied; notice received March 4, 1997.
- April 8, 1997 onward: Petition for certiorari filed in the Supreme Court; respondents required to comment; parties filed comment and reply as ordered.
Issue Presented
Whether the plaintiff was required to refer the dispute to the barangay lupon or pangkat for conciliation or settlement before instituting the collection action in the Regional Trial Court, given the allegations in the complaint regarding the parties’ residences.
Applicable Law
- 1987 Philippine Constitution (as the governing constitution applicable to cases decided in 1990 or later).
- Revised Katarungan Pambarangay Law (statutory requirement for barangay conciliation as condition precedent to court filing when parties reside in the same city/municipality).
- 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure (Rule 4, Sec. 2 regarding residence for venue purposes).
- Controlling procedural precedents cited by the Court (e.g., Serdoncillo v. Benolirao; San Miguel Corporation v. NLRC; Citibank, N.A. v. Court of Appeals; Bejer v. Court of Appeals; Candido v. Macapagal; Dangwa Transportation Co., Inc. v. Sarmiento; Agbayani v. Belen).
Court’s Analysis on Jurisdiction and the Effect of the Complaint’s Allegations
The Court emphasized the fundamental procedural rule that a court’s jurisdiction over the subject matter is determined by the allegations of the complaint, regardless of defenses raised by the defendant. Jurisdiction cannot be made to depend on defenses or a motion to dismiss because that would let the defendant control the jurisdictional question. Thus, the complaint’s own allegations about residence are decisive for determining whether the barangay conciliation requirement applies as a condition precedent.
Court’s Examination of the Complaint’s Allegations on Residence and Venue
The complaint expressly alleged that the plaintiff is a resident of No. 100 Imelda Village, Baguio City, and that the defendant is of legal age, Filipino, and has a postal office address at C-4 Ina Mansion, Kisad Road, Baguio City where he may be served. From these allegations the Court concluded it was “obvious” that the parties do not reside in the same city or municipality and therefore the barangay referral requirement (which applies when parties reside in the same municipality) did not apply. The Court also noted that while the complaint should properly allege the defendant’s actual residence (not merely a postal address) for venue purposes, the complaint nonetheless implied non-residence in the same locality, and that venue is not affected by the defendant’s later-filed motion asserting residence in Baguio City.
Doctrine on “Residence” for Venue and Relevance to Barangay Referral
The Court reiterated the established doctrine that for purposes of venue and related procedural rules, “resides” means actual, physical habitation or place of abode (actual residence), not necessarily legal domicile. The term is interpreted in
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 189028)
Nature of the Proceeding
- The case is a special civil action for certiorari filed with the Supreme Court.
- The petition assails orders of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 7, Baguio City, which granted respondent Albert S. Surla’s motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground that petitioner had not referred the action to the barangay lupon for conciliation or settlement as required by the Revised Katarungan Pambarangay Law.
- Decision authored by Justice Pardo.
Relevant Parties and Presiding Judge
- Petitioner: Angel L. Boleyley.
- Private respondent/defendant in the RTC: Albert S. Surla.
- Judicial respondent: Hon. Clarence J. Villanueva, Presiding Judge, Branch 7, Regional Trial Court, Baguio City.
- Justices concurring in the Supreme Court’s decision: Davide, Jr., C.J., Puno, Kapunan, and Ynares-Santiago, JJ.
Factual Background
- On August 7, 1996, petitioner Angel L. Boleyley filed a complaint in the Regional Trial Court, Baguio City, against private respondent Albert S. Surla for collection of money.
- In the complaint petitioner alleged his own residence as No. 100 Imelda Village, Baguio City.
- In the complaint petitioner alleged the defendant to be of legal age, Filipino, and with postal office address at C-4 Ina Mansion, Kisad Road, Baguio City, where he may be served with summons and other legal processes.
Reliefs Claimed in the Complaint
- The complaint sought the following monetary reliefs:
- P530,000.00 for actual damages;
- P50,000.00 for moral damages;
- P30,000.00 for exemplary damages;
- P30,000.00 as attorney’s fees plus P1,000.00 per court hearing;
- Costs of suit.
Motion to Dismiss and Grounds Raised
- On September 13, 1996, private respondent Albert S. Surla filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground that petitioner did not comply with the Revised Katarungan Pambarangay Law, which requires, as a condition for filing a complaint in court, referral of the matter to the barangay lupon chairman or the pangkat for conciliation or settlement.
Petitioner’s Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss
- On September 17, 1996, petitioner filed an opposition to the motion to dismiss.
- Petitioner’s opposition argued that private respondent was not a resident of Baguio City, and therefore the dispute involving the parties was not within the authority of the lupon to bring together for conciliation or settlement.
Trial Court Rulings and Reconsideration
- On November 29, 1996, the trial court issued an order dismissing the case for being premature for not having been referred to the barangay lupon.
- On December 5, 1996, petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, arguing that private respondent could not invoke the Katarungan Pambarangay Law because he was not a resident of Baguio City.
- On February 17, 1997, the trial court denied the motion for reconsideration for lack of merit; notice of this denial was received by petitioner on March 4, 1997.
- The dismissal and subsequent denial of the motion for reconsideration are the orders challenged by the petition for certiorari.
Supreme Court Proceedings and Chronology of Pleadings
- The petition for certiorari was filed with the Supreme Court on April 8, 1997, by registered mail.
- On July 9, 1997, the Supreme Court required respondents to comment on the petition within ten (10) days from notice.
- On August 26, 1997, private respondent filed his comment.
- On November 10, 1997, petitioner filed a reply in compliance with the Court’s resolution of September 29, 1997.
- The Court gave due course to the petition.
Core Issue Presented
- Whether petitioner was required to refer the dispute to the barangay lupon or pan