G.R. No. 96914 - Ledesma vs. Court of Appeals

Case Summary (G.R. No. 96914)

Factual Background

Cecilia U. Ledesma owned and leased two apartment units at 800 and 802 Remedios Street, Malate, Manila. The leases originated in written contracts dated December 10, 1984 and thereafter continued on a month-to-month basis under Article 1670 of the Civil Code. The monthly rents were P3,450.00 and P2,300.00 respectively. As of October 31, 1988, the private respondent had accrued unpaid rentals alleged to total P14,039.00, for which the petitioner sent demand letters. The petitioner averred that she referred the matter to the barangay for conciliation and produced a certification to file action. The petitioner also alleged that she was assisted at the barangay by her son, Raymund U. Ledesma, because she suffered recurring psychological and emotional ailments, a fact she supported with medical receipts and prescriptions annexed to her pleading.

Trial Court Proceedings

The Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch 10, Manila, rendered judgment on June 21, 1989 ordering the private respondent to vacate the premises, to pay rentals accruing after May 1989, and to pay attorney’s fees in the amount of P2,500.00. On appeal, the Regional Trial Court, Branch IX, Manila, affirmed the MTC ruling but reduced the award of attorney’s fees to P1,000.00.

Court of Appeals Decision

On petition for review, the Court of Appeals, in CA-G.R. SP No. 19704, reversed and set aside the RTC decision and dismissed the ejectment complaint for lack of cause of action. The Court of Appeals concluded that the petitioner had failed to comply with the conciliation and personal appearance requirements of Sections 6 and 9 of P.D. 1508. The appellate court relied on documentary evidence showing that the demand letters were signed by the petitioner’s son and by the petitioner’s counsel, and that the Certification to File Action signed by the barangay chairman identified Raymund U. Ledesma, not the petitioner, as complainant.

Issues Presented on Appeal to the Supreme Court

Petitioner assailed the Court of Appeals’ judgment on several grounds, contending principally that the appellate court erred in dismissing the ejectment complaint for lack of cause of action on the basis of alleged non-compliance with Sections 6 and 9 of P.D. 1508. Petitioner advanced six assignments of error, including that (1) the private respondent raised the issue of non-compliance only before the Court of Appeals and not in the lower court; (2) private respondent waived the defense; (3) the Court of Appeals gave undue credence to the private respondent’s self-serving allegation that summons was not served; (4) the presumption of regularity of barangay authorities was ignored; (5) the barangay settlement had been repudiated; and (6) the lower courts’ judgments should have been affirmed.

Parties’ Contentions Below and on Appeal

Before the MTC the private respondent expressly pleaded in paragraphs 4, 7 and 8 of his Answer that he was not summoned or subpoenaed by the barangay chairman, that the certification to file action was improperly issued and that the petitioner therefore had no cause of action. The petitioner countered that the objection to compliance with P.D. 1508 could not be raised for the first time on appeal and that she personally appeared before the Lupon and was represented only by her son because of her psychological ailment. The petitioner also relied on jurisprudence and the presumption that barangay officials performed their duties in issuing the certification to file action.

Legal Basis and Reasoning of the Court

The Court first held that the private respondent had not raised the defense for the first time on appeal because his Answer sufficiently alleged non-compliance; the averment that he was never summoned or subpoenaed and that the certification was improperly issued was tantamount to invoking the precondition to filing established by Section 6 of P.D. 1508. The Court then examined the mandatory personal-appearance requirement of Section 9 of P.D. 1508, emphasizing that the provision requires parties to appear in person at barangay conciliation without counsel or representative, except for minors and incompetents who may be assisted by next of kin who are not lawyers. The Court relied on Minister of Justice Opinion No. 135, s. 1981, and the maxim expressio unius est exclusio alterius to construe the exceptions as exclusive. The Court found the record barren of evidence that the petitioner personally appeared before the Lupon. Documentary evidence attached to the petitioner’s own complaint showed that the demand letters were signed by her son and by an attorney and that the Certification to File Action named her son as complainant. The Court concluded that the petitioner did not establish incompetence or minority t

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 96914)

Parties and Procedural Posture

Cecilia U. Ledesma was the petitioner who sought reversal of the Court of Appeals' decision dismissing her ejectment complaint.
The Hon. Court of Appeals and Jose T. Dizon were the respondents to the petition for review.
The petitioner sought reversal of the August 30, 1990 decision of the Court of Appeals and of the January 7, 1991 resolution denying reconsideration.
The ejectment action originated in the Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch 10, Manila, and was appealed to the Regional Trial Court, Branch IX, Manila, before being elevated to the Court of Appeals.
The Supreme Court rendered the present decision affirming the Court of Appeals and imposed treble costs against the petitioner.

Key Factual Allegations

The petitioner owned and leased two apartment units at 800-802 Remedios Street, Malate, Manila to the private respondent at monthly rates of P3,450.00 and P2,300.00 respectively.
The leases were evidenced by written contracts dated December 10, 1984 and were alleged to have been renewed on a month-to-month basis pursuant to Article 1670 of the Civil Code.
The petitioner alleged arrears totaling P14,039.00 as of October 31, 1988 and sent demand letters which the private respondent allegedly received.
The petitioner referred the matter to the Barangay for conciliation and produced a Certification to File Action from the Barangay.
The petitioner asserted that she was assisted by her son, Raymond U. Ledesma, during the barangay proceedings because she was suffering from recurring psychological and emotional ailments.
The petitioner eventually retained counsel and filed an ejectment complaint in the Metropolitan Trial Court after the barangay proceedings.

Procedural History

The Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch 10, Manila, rendered judgment on June 21, 1989 ordering eviction, payment of post-May 1989 rentals, and attorney's fees of P2,500.00.
The Regional Trial Court, Branch IX, Manila, affirmed the MTC judgment but reduced attorney's fees to P1,000.00.
The private respondent filed a petition for review in the Court of Appeals, which on August 30, 1990 reversed the RTC decision and dismissed the ejectment complaint for lack of cause of action.
The Court of Appeals' denial of reconsideration was dated January 7, 1991.
The petitioner filed a petition for review with the Supreme Court, which affirmed the Court of Appeals' judgment on July 23, 1992.

Issues Presented

Whether the defense of non-compliance with Sections 6 and 9 of P.D. 1508 was raised sufficiently in the lower courts or was first raised on appeal.
Whether the mandatory barangay conciliation requirement in Section 6, P.D. 1508 was complied with.
Whether the personal appearance requirement of Section 9, P.D. 1508 was complied with or excused by the petitioner's alleged psychological ailment.
Whether the Certification to File Action issued by the barangay was irregular or improperly issued and whether such irregularity vitiated the complaint.

Contentions of the Parties

The petitioner contended that the Court of Appeals erred in