MORATA v.

GO (1983)
1
FACTS: Spouses Victor and Flora Go filed a complaint against spouses Julius and Ma. Luisa Morata for recovery of
a sum of money plus damages amounting to P49,4. in !F" !e#u. $n t%e #asis of t%e allegation in t%e
complaint t%at t%e parties&litigants are all residents of !e#u !ity, t%e Moratas filed a motion to dismiss, citing as
grounds t%erefor, t%e failure of t%e complaint to allege prior availment #y t%e Gos of t%e #arangay conciliation
process re'uired #y P.(. )*+, as ,ell as t%e a#sence of a certification #y t%e Lupon or Pang-at Secretary t%at no
conciliation or settlement %ad #een reac%ed #y t%e parties. .%e motion ,as opposed #y t%e Gos. .%e /udge denied
t%e motion to dismiss, ruling t%at t%e provision of Sec 0 of t%e la, applies only to cases cogni1a#le #y t%e inferior
courts mentioned in Secs )) and )2 of t%e la,.
ISSUE: 3$4 t%e complaint s%ould #e dismissed for failure to comply ,it% P( )*+
HELD/RATIO: 56S. .%e nature of t%e case at #ar does not fall under t%e e7ceptions cited in Sections 2
2
and 0
8
of
P.(. )*+. Since t%e la, does not distinguis%, t%is case9dispute s%ould %ave #een first settled amica#ly #y t%e
Lupon. Furt%ermore, t%ere is no s%o,ing t%at t%at t%e intention of t%e la, is to restrict its coverage only to cases
cogni1a#le #y t%e inferior courts for it ,ould not %ave included t%e rule on venue provided in Section 8 :pertaining to
land disputes ,%ic% are traditionally cogni1a#le #y !F"s9;.!s< t%ereof. .%is is furt%er supported #y !ircular 4o. 22
issued #y t%en !J Fernando ,%ic% gave notice to all !F"s to recogni1e t%e =atarungang Pam#arangay La, and
desist from acting upon cases falling ,it%in t%e aut%ority of t%e Lupons. .%is circular ,as noted #y President
Marcos. >ence, t%e !ourt declared t%at t%e conciliation process at t%e #arangay level, prescri#ed #y P.(. )*+ as a
pre&condition for filing a complaint in court, is compulsory not only for cases falling under t%e e7clusive competence
of t%e metropolitan and municipal trial courts, #ut for actions cogni1a#le #y t%e regional trial courts as ,ell.
Purpose of the Law. ?y compelling t%e disputants to settle t%eir differences t%roug% t%e intervention of t%e
#arangay leader and ot%er respected mem#ers of t%e #arangay, t%e animosity generated #y protracted court
litigations #et,een mem#ers of t%e same political unit, a disruptive factor to,ard unity and cooperation, is avoided.
"t must #e #orne in mind t%at t%e conciliation process at t%e #arangay level is li-e,ise designed to discourage
indiscriminate filing of cases in court in order to decongest its clogged doc-ets and, in t%e process, en%ance t%e
'uality of /ustice dispensed #y it. .%us, to say t%at t%e aut%ority of t%e Lupon is limited to cases e7clusively
cogni1a#le #y t%e inferior courts is to lose sig%t of t%is o#/ective. 3orse, it ,ould ma-e t%e la, a self&defeating one.
For ,%at ,ould stop a party, say in an action for a sum of money or damages, as in t%e instant case, from #loating
up %is claim in order to place %is case #eyond t%e /urisdiction of t%e inferior court and t%ere#y avoid t%e mandatory
re'uirement of P.(. )*+@ And ,%y, indeed, s%ould t%e la, see- to ease t%e congestion of doc-ets only in inferior
courts and not in t%e regional trial courts ,%ere t%e log&/am of cases is muc% more serious@ "ndeed, t%e la,ma-ers
could not %ave intended suc% %alf&measure and self&defeating legislation.
1
Lou Maca#od#od
2
S6!."$4 2. Su#/ect matters for amica#le settlement.B.%e Lupon of eac% #arangay s%all %ave aut%ority to #ring toget%er t%e parties actually residing
in t%e same city or municipality for amica#le settlement of all disputes e7ceptC
D)E 3%ere one party is t%e government ,or any su#division or instrumentality t%ereofF
D2E 3%ere one party is a pu#lic officer or employee, and t%e dispute relates to t%e performance of %is official functionsF
D8E $ffenses punis%a#le #y imprisonment e7ceeding 8 days, or a fine e7ceeding P2.F
D4E $ffenses ,%ere t%ere is no private offended partyF
D*E Suc% ot%er classes of disputes ,%ic% t%e Prime Minister may in t%e interest of /ustice determine upon recommendation of t%e Minister of
Justice and t%e Minister of Local Government.
3
S6!."$4 0. !onciliation pre&condition to filing of complaint.B 4o complaint, petition, action for proceeding involving any matter ,it%in t%e aut%ority of
t%e Lupon as provided in Section 2 %ereof s%all #e filed or instituted in court or any ot%er government office for ad/udication unless t%ere %as #een a
confrontation of t%e parties #efore t%e Lupon !%airman or t%e Pang-at and no conciliation or settlement %as #een reac%ed as certified #y t%e Lupon
Secretary or t%e Pang-at Secretary attested #y t%e Lupon or Pang-at !%airman, or unless t%e settlement %as #een repudiated. >o,ever, t%e parties
may go directly to court in t%e follo,ing casesC
D)E 3%ere t%e accused is under detentionF
D2E 3%ere a person %as ot%er,ise #een deprived of personal li#erty calling for %a#eas corpus proceedingsF
D8E Actions coupled ,it% provisional remedies suc% as preliminary in/unction, attac%ment, delivery of personal property and support pendente
liteF and
D4E 3%ere t%e action may ot%er,ise #e #arred #y t%e Statute of Limitations