(124) TRIUMFO GARCES v CA and DAISY ESCALANTE June 23, 1988 MeTC, in accordance with the Rule on Summary

Rule on Summary Procedure, ruled in favor of

Topic: Venue of personal actions Garces, and ordered Escalante to vacate Room B, and pay Garces P3k as atty's
Summary: fees.
Garces owns an apartment in Malate, Manila. Escalante leased Room B of the
said apartment. The lease contract expired, but Escalante refused to vacate Escalante subsequently interposed an appeal with the RTC Manila.
Room B. Garces, thus, filed an ejectment case against Escalante with the MeTC
Manila. MeTC ordered Escalante to vacate. On appeal, however, RTC dismissed RTC Manila reversed the decision of the MeTC.
the complaint. Noting that both parties are residents of Manila, RTC pointed out - the complaint failed to state a cause of action, and therefore the
MeTC cannot that Garces failed to comply with the requirements of Section 6 of PD 1508 — i.e., take cognizance of the instant case
the controversy had not been submitted for conciliation before the barangay - there had been a failure on the part of Garces to comply with the
requirements
Lupong Tagapayapa or Pangkat ng Tagapagkasundo, and no Certification to File of Section 6 of PD 1508 — i.e., the controversy had not been submitted for
Action had been issued by the appropriate barangay official, prior to the conciliation before the barangay Lupong Tagapayapa or Pangkat ng
institution of ejectment proceedings in court. Tagapagkasundo, and no Certification to File Action had been issued by the
CA and SC both affirmed the decision of the RTC. appropriate barangay official, prior to the institution of ejectment proceedings
Doctrine: in court. (RTC noted that both parties were then residents of Manila)
The precise technical effect of failure to comply with the requirement of P.D.
1508 where applicable is much the same effect produced by non-exhaustion of Garces filed a Petition for Review before the CA.
administrative remedies: the complaint becomes afflicted with the vice of pre- CA affirmed in toto the decision of the RTC.
maturity; the controversy there alleged is not ripe for judicial determination. Garces' MR was subsequently denied for having been filed late. Hence
the
The complaint becomes vulnerable to a motion to dismiss. present Petition for Review.
--------------------------------- ------------------------------------------
FELICIANO, J Garces' Argument:
Petition for review - Procedural requirement under PD1508 is not applicable. The leased apartment
FACTS unit is only the place where Escalante stays during workdays as she is working
Triumfo Garces is owner of an apartment building located at No. 1603 General in Manila. Her established residence is in Cavite where she has her
house.
Malvar Street, Malate. - Escalante had waived the procedural requirement under P.D. 1508 when she
failed to raised this issue in the MeTC
Aug 14 1984, Graces filed with the MeTC Manila a Complaint for ejectment -------------------------------------------
against Daisy Escalante, the lessee of Room B in that apartment building. WON Escalante is covered by S6 PD1508.
Allegation: Held: Yes
- the verbal contract of lease with Escalante, being on a month-to-month basis, PD 1508 does not refer here to one's legal residence or domicile which,
for
had already expired, but that the latter had unreasonably refused to vacate the differing purposes may differ from the actual or physical habitation of a
litigant.
leased premises despite oral and written demands. The policy of the law is to promote dispute settlement through non-litigious,
- (in his Amended Complaint it was further alleged that) Escalante had compulsory conciliation procedures and disputes arise where people actually or
converted the leased premises into a boarding house without his prior consent physically reside. The fact that Escalante stays in the apartment unit in
Malate 5
or approval in violation of the terms and conditions of their verbal lease days a week, every week, is more than adequate proof that, within the meaning
agreement. of the Decree, Escalante "actually resides" in Manila.
WON Escalante had waived the procedural requirement under P.D. 1508.
Held: No
Prior recourse to the conciliation procedure required under P.D. 1508 is not a
jurisdictional requirement, non-compliance with which would deprive a court of its
jurisdiction either over the subject matter or over the person of the defendant.
Where, however, the fact of non-compliance with and non-observance of such
procedure has been seasonably raised as an issue before the court first taking
cognizance of the complaint, dismissal of the action is proper.

Escalante had filed with the MeTC a total of 4 pleadings — an Answer, a Motion
for Opposition of Plaintiffs Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint, an Amended
Answer, and a Position Paper — before a decision was rendered in this case. In
those four pleadings, Escalante, argued, among other things, that the procedural
requirement under S6 of P.D. 1508 had been improperly by passed by Garces.

Also, it should be borne in mind that this case was, before the MeTC Court,
governed by the Rule on Summary Procedure and that under Section 15 (a) and
(g) of that Rule, no motion to dismiss and no petition for certiorari or prohibition
against any interlocutory order issued by the trial court, is possible. Thus,
Escalante could not have moved to dismiss, in the MeTC, upon the ground of
failure to comply with the requirements of P.D. 1508. Neither could Escalante
have gone on certiorari before the RTC at anytime before rendition by the MeTC
of its decision. Therefore, Escalante had not waived expressly or impliedly the
procedural requirement under P.D. 1508 and that, since the Decree is applicable
in the present case, Garces' complaint should have been dismissed outright.

The precise technical effect of failure to comply with the requirement of P.D.
1508 where applicable is much the same effect produced by non-exhaustion of
administrative remedies: the complaint becomes afflicted with the vice of pre-
maturity; the controversy there alleged is not ripe for judicial determination.
The complaint becomes vulnerable to a motion to dismiss.

WHEREFORE, the Petition for Review is DENIED. The Decision of the

Metropolitan Trial Court of Manila is SET ASIDE and the Complaint is hereby
DISMISSED, without prejudice. Costs against the petitioner.