FELIZARDO VS CA

G.R. No. 112050                       June 15, 1994

FACTS: 

The petitioner averred inter alia that the private respondent's allegations to support his prayer for a preliminary injunction were utterly false and intended only to evade the requirements of P.D. 1508 3 for prior barangay conciliation.

ISSUE:

Whether that court, in continuing to act on the case despite the lack of prior barangay conciliation as required by the Revised Katarungang Pambarangay Law, committed a mere error or judgment that could be reversed in an ordinary appeal or an error of jurisdiction correctible by certiorari.

RULING:

Section 412 of the Revised Katarungang Pambarangay Law provides:  

Sec. 412. Conciliation. — 

(a) Pre-condition to filing of complaint in court. — No complaint, petition, action, or proceeding involving any matter within the authority of the Lupon shall be filed or instituted directly in court or any other government office for adjudication unless there has been a confrontation between the parties before the lupon chairman or the pangkat, and that no conciliation or settlement has been reached as certified by the lupon secretary or the pangkat secretary, attested to by the lupon chairman or pangkat chairman or unless the settlement has been repudiated by the parties thereto.

(b) Where the parties may go directly to court. — The parties may go directly to court in the following instances: 

(1) Where the accused is under detention;

(2) Where a person has otherwise been deprived of personal liberty calling for habeas corpusproceedings;

(3) Where actions are coupled with provisional remedies such as preliminary injunction, attachment, delivery of personal property and support pendente lite; and

(4) Where the action may otherwise be barred by the statute of limitations.

xxx xxx xxx

In the case at bar, the complaint for ejectment filed by the private respondent contained an application for the issuance of a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction, as allowed under Section 33 of BP 129. The suit would, therefore, ostensibly fall under the exception mentioned in Section 412 (b) of the Katarungang Pambarangay Law.