Before Us is a 

Petition for Review on Certiorari1 filed by herein petitioner Antonio G.

Ngo (Ngo) assailing the January 8, 2013 Decision2 and June 19, 2013
Resolution3 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. S.P. No. 117120 which nullified
and set aside the April 5, 20104 and October 15, 20105 Orders of the Regional Trial
Court (RTC) of Manila, Branch 45 and dismissed Ngo's complaint for recovery of
possession of a parcel of land for his failure to refer the case to prior barangay
conciliation.

Factual Antecedents

On September 24, 2008, Ngo filed before the RTC of Manila, Branch 45, a
complaint6 for recovery of possession of a parcel of land covered by Transfer
Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 250439 (subject property) against herein respondents
Visitacion Gabelo, Erlinda Abella, Petra Perez, Eduardo Traquena, Erlinda
Traquena, Ulysis Mateo, Alfonso Placido, Leonardo Traquena, Susana Rendon and
Mateo Trinidad (Gabelo, et al.).7

In his complaint, Ngo alleged that he is the lawful and absolute owner of the subject
property by virtue of the Deed of Absolute Sale between himself and Philippine
Realty Corporation (PRC) and pursuant to this Court's ruling in GR. No. 111743. He
averred that despite several demands, Gabelo, et al. refused to vacate the subject
property.

On the other hand, Gabelo, et al., in their Answer with special Affirmative Defenses
and Compulsory Counterclaims8 maintained that Ngo has no legal personality to
sue. Moreover, the Court did not declare him in G.R. No. 111743 as the absolute
owner of the subject property but merely identified him as one of those who could
buy the lot from PRC. They insisted that Ngo failed to comply with the condition
precedent for filing the action since he failed to bring the matter to the barangay for
conciliation. Additionally, they averred that the validity of the alleged TCT No. 250439
under the name of Ngo is already being assailed before RTC of Manila Branch 37
and docketed as Civil Case No. 00-98807.9

Ruling of the Regional Trial Court:

After pre-trial, the RTC issued an Order10 dated April 17, 2009 directing the
dismissal of the complaint for lack of cause of action, viz.:

WHEREFORE, premises considered: the subject Answer With Special/Affirmative

Defenses and Compulsory Counterclaims of the defendants shall not be expunged
from the records and shall remain as validly filed; the Pre-Trial Brief of the said
defendants is hereby ordered EXPUNGED from the records of this case for its failure
to comply with the MCLE requirement; and the Complaint is hereby DISMISSED for
lack of cause of action for the plaintiffs failure to comply with the barangay law
requirements.

SO ORDERED.11

The trial court held that, considering that Ngo admitted that the case did not undergo
the required barangay conciliation proceedings before it was filed with the court, the
complaint should be dismissed accordingly for lack of cause of action. Necessarily,
the trial court was empowered to motu propio dismiss the complaint for Ngo's failure
to comply with the rules.12

Ngo filed his Motion for Reconsideration13 and alleged that while the trial court
indeed had the power to dismiss the complaint due to his failure to refer the case to
barangay conciliation, the RTC also had the discretion to simply suspend the
proceedings and to refer the case to barangay conciliation instead of dismissing
outright the complaint.14

Persuaded by Ngo's arguments, the RTC in its Order15 dated April 5, 2010 granted
the supplication of Ngo. The dispositive portion of the Order reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the plaintiffs subject MOTION FOR
RECONSlDERATION is hereby GRANTED and the Order of this Court dated April
17, 2009 in so far as it ordered the dismissal of the Complaint for lack of cause of
action for the plaintiffs failure to comply with the Barangay law requirements is
hereby reconsidered and set aside.

Accordingly, the Complaint in this case is hereby reinstated and this case is hereby
referred to the Barangay Court/authorities concerned where the herein parties are
directed to undergo the proper Barangay conciliation proceedings.

In the meanwhile, the proceedings in this Court are hereby suspended pending the
submission of this Court of the corresponding Barangay Certification/Report with
regard to the result of said Barangay proceedings.

SO ORDERED.16

Gabelo, et al. thus filed their Motion to Set Aside/Reconsider Order dated April 5,
2010,17 arguing that reinstating the complaint of Ngo was a miscarriage of justice
because any complaint that failed to comply with the barangay conciliation
requirement does not deserve to be given due course or be entertained.18

The trial court in its Order19 dated October 15, 2010 denied the motion for
reconsideration filed by Gabeo, et al. Thus, the latter filed a Petition
for Certiorari20 before the CA assailing the April 5, 2010 and October 15, 2010
Orders of the RTC sustaining the reinstatement of the complaint and the referral of
the case to barangay conciliation.21

The Ruling of the Court of Appeals

The appellate court granted Gabelo, et al.'s Petition. It found that indeed, the RTC
committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing the assailed Orders.

The CA ratiocinated that the barangay justice system was established primarily as a
means of easing up the congestion of cases in judicial courts and for it to be truly
effective it should be made compulsory. Moreover, the Local Government Code
expressly mandated resort to that barangay conciliation proceedings is a
precondition to the filing of complaints for disputes between parties actually residing
in the same city or municipality and non-compliance therewith could affect the
sufficiency of the plaintiff's cause of action. Even after Gabelo, et al. filed their
Answer and raised as an affirmative defense Ngo's failure to comply with the
condition precedent of barangay conciliation, the RTC did not dismiss the complaint
but merely suspended the proceedings and referred the case to barangay
conciliation, which amounts to grave abuse of discretion.

The dispositive portion of the assailed January 8, 2013 Decision of the CA states:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is GRANTED. The orders dated

April 5, 2010 and October 15, 2010, both issued by the Regional Trial Court (RTC),
Branch 45 of Manila are NULLIFIED and SET ASIDE. The complaint for recovery of
possession is dismissed for failure to comply with the Barangay Justice Law.

SO ORDERED.22

Unsatisfied with the ruling of the CA, Ngo filed his Motion for Reconsideration23 but
it was denied by the appellate court.24 Hence, this Petition for Review
on Certiorari before this Court.

Our Ruling

The petition is denied.

Ngo asserts that the CA erred in nullifying the Orders of the RTC and in dismissing
the complaint for recovery and possession of property because of his failure to
comply with the barangay conciliation requirement. He argues that the CA failed to
apply this Court's ruling in Sps. Santos v. Sps. Lumbao25 which provided that failing
to file a Motion to Dismiss on account of failure to comply with a condition precedent
constitutes waiver on the part of the defendant. Finally, he asserts that considering
his subsequent compliance with the barangay conciliation requirement during the
pendency of the case in the CA, the petition in the appellate court was rendered
moot and academic.26

The arguments of Ngo deserve scant consideration.

We emphasize at the outset that procedural rules are essential in the administration
of justice. They do not exist for the convenience of the litigants and they were
established primarily to provide order to, and enhance the efficiency of, our judicial
system.27 These rules exist for a reason and were not merely invented out of whims.
In Santos v. Court of Appeals,28 this Court held that:

Procedural rules are not to be disdained as mere technicalities that may be ignored
at will to suit the convenience of a party. Adjective law is important in insuring the
effective enforcement of substantive rights through the orderly and speedy
administration of justice. These rules are not intended to hamper litigants or
complicate litigation but, indeed, to provide for a system under which suitors may be
heard in the correct form and manner and at the prescribed time in a peaceful
confrontation before a judge whose authority they acknowledge. The other
alternative is the settlement of their conflict through the barrel of a gun.29

Republic Act No. 7160 (RA 7160), or the Local Government Code of 1991, provides
that barangay conciliation proceedings is a pre-condition to filing a complaint in court
between persons actually residing in the same barangay to explore possible
amicable settlement. The relevant provisions of RA 7160 in the conduct of barangay
conciliation are as follows:

Section 409. Venue.– (a) Disputes between persons actually residing in the same
barangay shall be brought for amicable settlement before the Lupon of said
barangay.

(b) Those involving actual residents of different barangays within the same
city or municipality shall be brought in the barangay where the respondent or
any of the respondents actually resides, at the election of the complainant.

(c) All disputes involving real property or any interest therein shall be brought
in the barangay where the real property or the larger portion thereof is
situated.

(d) Those arising at the workplace where the contending parties are
employed or at the institution where such parties are enrolled for study, shall
be brought in the barangay where such workplace or institution is located.

Objections to venue shall be raised in the mediation proceedings before the punong
barangay; otherwise, the same shall be deemed waived. Any legal question which
may confront the punong barangay in resolving objections to venue herein referred
to may be submitted to the Secretary of Justice or his duly designated
representative, whose ruling thereon shall be binding. [Emphasis Ours]

Section 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 pangkat secretary as attested to by
the lupon or pangkat chairman or unless the settlement has been repudiated by the
parties thereto. [Emphasis Ours]

Administrative Circular No. 14-9330 enumerated the cases which are not covered by
the mandatory barangay conciliation, to wit:

1. Where one party is the government, or any subdivision or instrumentality

thereof;

2. Where one party is a public officer or employee, and the dispute relates to
the performance of his official functions;

3. Where the dispute involves real properties located in different cities and
municipalities, unless the parties thereto agree to submit their difference to
amicable settlement by an appropriate Lupon;

4. Any complaint by or against corporations, partnership or juridical entities,

since only individuals shall be parties to Barangay conciliation proceedings
either as complainants or respondents (Sec. 1 , Rule VI, Katarungang
Pambarangay Rules);

5. Disputes involving parties who actually reside in barangays of different

cities or municipalities, except where such barangay units adjoin each other
and the parties thereto agree to submit their differences to amicable
settlement by an appropriate Lupon;

6. Offenses for which the law prescribes a maximum penalty of imprisonment

exceeding one (1) year or a fine over five thousand pesos (P5,000.00);

7. Offenses where there is no private offended party;

8. Disputes where urgent legal action is necessary to prevent injustice from

being committed or further continued, specifically the following:

a. Criminal cases where accused is under police custody or detention

(see Sec. 412 (b) (1), Revised Katarungang Pambarangay Law);

b. Petitions for habeas corpus by a person illegally deprived of his

rightful custody over another or a person illegally deprived or on
acting in his behalf;

c. Actions coupled with provisional remedies such as preliminary

injunction, attachment, delivery of personal property and support
during the pendency of the action; and

d. Actions which may be barred by the Statute of Limitations.

9. Any class of disputes which the President may determine in the interest of
justice or upon the recommendation of the Secretary of Justice;

10. Where the dispute arises from the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law
(CARL) (Sec. 46 & 47, R.A. 6657);

11. Labor disputes or controversies arising from employer-employee

relations (Montoya vs. Escayo, et al., 171 SCRA 442; Art. 226, Labor Code,
as amended, which grants original and exclusive jurisdiction over conciliation
and mediation of disputes, grievances or problems to certain offices of the
Department of Labor and Employment);

12. Actions to annul judgment upon a compromise which may be filed directly
in court (See Sanchez vs. Tupaz, 158 SCRA 459). Ꮮαwρhi ৷