Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 1

CASE #2:

G.R. No. 167261


March 2, 2007
ROSARIA LUPITAN PANG-ET, petitioner, vs. CATHERINE MANACNES-DAO-AS, Heir of LEONCIO
MANACNES and FLORENTINA MANACNES,respondent.
FACTS:
Petitioner filed for recovery of possession of real property located in sitio Abatan, Sagada before the
MCTC of Sagada against the respondent spouses Manacnes. During the course of the trial, the parties
thru their counsel, agreed to refer the matter to the Lupon for arbitration. In result, the MCTC
proceedings were suspended. 3 days later, Lupon issued a certification to file an action due to the
refusal of the Manacnes to enter into an agreement for arbitration and their insistence that the case
should go to court. More than a month later, MCTC remanded the matter to the Lupon and ordered the
latter to issue an arbitration award; Lupon rendered an arbitration award, ordering the petitioner to
retrieve the land upon payment of P8,000 for the improvements therein. Respondent being the
aggrieved party, repudiated the award but the same was rejected by the Lupon. The petitioner filed
with the Lupon a motion for execution. However, MCTC denied such motion contending that the 10 day
reglementary period has lapsed. 6 years later the petitionerfiled with MCTC an action for the
enforcement of the award, however the respondents argue that the award was void for having violated
section 413 (a) and 415 of RA 7160.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the case properly gone the KPL rules.
HELD:
The Supreme Court ruled in the negative holding such award to be void on the following grounds.
Section 413 (a) states in clear that the parties should personally sign the arbitration award, but the
respondents failed to do so. It was Catherine who signed the same. If a party is entitled to an
assistance it shall be done only when the party concerned is a minor or incompetent. Section 415 also
states the parties personal appearance before the Lupon is Mandatory.
It appears that the party intentionally intended not to conform for arbitration.
Another explanation of the ruling:
What is compulsory under the Katarungang Pambarangay Law is that there be CONFRONTATION
between the parties before aLupon and that a certification be issued that NO CONCILIATION OR
SETTLEMENT HAS BEEN REACHED, before a case falling within the authority of the Lupon may be
instituted in court or any other government office for adjudication.
The only other precondition before any case may be filed before a court is that there has been
personal confrontationbetween parties but despite earnest efforts to conciliate, THERE WAS A FAILURE
TO AMICABLY SETTLE THE DISPUTE.
While spouses Manacnes appeared before the Lupon, they refused to sign the Agreement for
Arbitration form, which would have signified their consent to submit the case for arbitration.

Похожие интересы