The case stemmed from the lease of one of the apartments of Dona Alicia to Pascual and his family way back in 1973. They verbally agreed that the rental was P3,000 a month and the premises will be used by a single family for residential purposes only.
After 23 years and upon the death of Dona Alicia, her heirs as represented by Nita, their attorney-in-fact, asked Pascual to sign a written contract of lease wherein the rental was increased to P3,600 a month. But Pascual refused and no such contract was signed until he died a year later. His widow, Lina and their seven children (two of whom had their own families) continued to reside in the premises. They refused however to pay the increased rent and even operated a photocopying business in said apartment. So when Lina applied for a waterline installation in the premises, which required the written consent of the owner, Nita as attorney in fact declined because Lina and her children refused to pay the new rental and violated the restrictions on the use of the premises by operating a photocopying business and allowing three families to reside therein.
This prompted Lina to file with the office of the Punong Barangay a complaint against Nita, "Ukol sa hindi pagbibigay ng pahintulot sa pagpapakabit ng tubig". A total of nine Barangay conciliation conferences and confrontations were held over a period of eight months wherein not only the issue of water installation was discussed but also the violation of the terms of the lease specifically the use of a portion therein by Lina and her family for their photocopying machine and their refusal to sign the proposed written contract and to pay the increased rental. On the last Barangay conciliation Lina declared that she refused to sign the new lease contract because she was not agreeable with the conditions specified therein. Thus Nita wrote Lina informing her that the lease was being terminated and demanding that the latter vacate the premises within 30 days.
When Lina and her children refused to heed the demands, Nita filed a complaint for unlawful detainer with damages with the Metropolitan Trial Court (MTC) after getting a Certification to File Action from the Barangay Chairman.
Lina and her children filed a motion to dismiss the suit on two grounds: first, the Barangay certification was fatally defective because it pertains to the refusal of Nita to give consent to the water service connection and not to the ejectment case; and second, the "pangkat ng tagapagkasundo" was not formed when the parties failed to settle before the Barangay or Lupon Chairman which is in violation of Section 410(b) RA 7160. Was Lina correct?
No. while it is true that the case in the Barangay was filed by Lina and her children and that its title refers to the refusal of Nita to give consent to the water connection, the actual issues discussed during the proceedings also include the terms of the lease and the refusal of Lina et. al. to vacate the premises despite the violation of the conditions and failure to pay the increased rental. To require another confrontation at the Barangay level as a sine qua non for the filing of the ejectment case would not serve any useful purpose anymore since no new issues would be raised and the parties have shown that they cannot get to settle their differences amicably.
Section 412 (a) of the law does not provide as a precondition the convening of the Pangkat ng Tagapagkasundo for conciliation prior to the filing of the case in Court. Said section clearly provides that the parties shall go through the conciliation process either before the Lupon chairman or the Pangkat. Notwithstanding the mandate of Section 410 (b) cited by Lina et. al., the same section should be construed together with section 412 (a) as well as the circumstances obtaining in and peculiar to the case. Here, while the pangkat was not constituted the parties met nine times at the office of the Lupon Chairman for conciliation wherein not only the issue of water installation was discussed but also Lina and her children’s violation of the lease contract. It is thus manifest that there was substantial compliance with the law (Zamora et. l. vs. Heirs of Izquierdo etc. G.R. 146195, November 18, 2004).
E-mail at: jcson@pldtdsl.net