Alternative Dispute Resolution

Cases

1. Nena Solway vs. Ariel Pascasio

AM No. P-07-2327 – July 12, 2007
Facts:
● Complainant leased a building where she established an inn and restaurant.
However, the owner suddenly increased the monthly rental and shortened the period
of lease to one year. The parties failed to reach an agreement. Hence, the matter was
referred to the Office of the Lupong Tagapamayapa.
● Before the Lupon, the parties signed an Amicable Settlement. Subsequently,
Palenzuela went to complainant’s restaurant and produced a copy of a Notice of
Execution signed by Barangay Chairman, who turned out to be Palenzuelas brother,
and forced complainant to sign the same. Complainant refused to do so. The following
day, Pascasio and Uclaray, with the same copy of the Notice of Execution in tow, also
forced and threatened complainant to sign. Out of fear, complainant relented and
signed the Notice of Execution.
● Later, Respondents, returned to complainants restaurant. They introduced
themselves as sheriffs and ordered complainant to take all her properties out of the
restaurant. The latter refused, insisting that there was no court order authorizing the
execution and that an agreement for the renewal of the lease contract had already
been reached. Later, on the same day, the barangay chairman ordered respondents
to take complainants stuff out of the restaurant and into the street. Respondents
complied. Thereafter, respondents padlocked all the rooms and ordered all customers
to get out of the establishment.
Issue:
● Whether or not Respondents acted in grave abuse of their authority considering that
there was no court order to eject her.
Held:
● The Amicable Settlement reached by the parties before the Barangay Lupon is
susceptible to legal enforcement. However, the Local Government Code mandates
that it is the Lupon itself which is tasked to enforce by execution the amicable
settlement or arbitration award within six (6) months from the date of settlement.
Upon the lapse of such time, the settlement may only be enforced by filing an
action before the appropriate court.
SEC. 417. Execution.The amicable settlement or arbitration award may be
enforced by execution by the Lupon within six (6) months from the date of
the settlement. After the lapse of such time, the settlement may be
enforced by action in the proper city or municipal court. (Local Government
Code)
● Clearly, the implementation of the Notice of Execution was then outside the
legitimate concern of the MTCC, of any of its officers or of any other judicial officer.
The barangay chairmans letter to the MTCC seeking assistance in the
enforcement of the Amicable Settlement is not by any measure the court action
contemplated by law as it does not confer jurisdiction on the MTCC over the instant
dispute.

2. Proceso Quiros vs. Leonarda Villegas

GR No. 158901 – March 9, 2004
Facts:
● Petitioners filed with the office of the barangay captain, a complaint for recovery of
ownership and possession of a parcel of land. Petitioners sought to recover from their
uncle Marcelo Arjona, one of the respondents herein, their lawful share of the
inheritance from their late grandmother Rosa Arjona Quiros alias Doza. On January
5, 1997, an amicable settlement was reached between the parties. Petitioners filed a
complaint with the Municipal Circuit Trial Court with prayer for the issuance of a writ
of execution of the compromise agreement which was denied because the subject
property cannot be determined with certainty. The Regional Trial Court reversed the
decision of the municipal court on appeal and ordered the issuance of the writ of
execution.
Issue:
● Whether or not there was a valid and enforceable amicable settlement between the
parties and corollary to this, a writ of execution may issue on the basis thereof.
Held:
● Generally, the rule is that where no repudiation was made during the 10-day period,
the amicable settlement attains the status of finality and it becomes the ministerial
duty of the court to implement and enforce it. However, such rule is not inflexible for
it admits of certain exceptions. In Santos v. Judge Isidro, the Court observed that
special and exceptional circumstances, the imperatives of substantial justice, or facts
that may have transpired after the finality of judgment which would render its
execution unjust, may warrant the suspension of execution of a decision that has
become final and executory. In the case at bar, the ends of justice would be frustrated
if a writ of execution is issued considering the uncertainty of the object of the
agreement. To do so would open the possibility of error and future litigations.

3. Rosario Lupitan Pang-et vs Catherine Manacnes-Dao-As

GR No. 167261 – March 2, 2007
Facts:
● Petitioner filed an Action for recovery of possession of real property before the MCTC
against the spouses Leoncio and Florentina Manacnes, the predecessors-in-interest
of herein respondent. During the course of the pre-trial, the parties, through their
respective counsels, agreed to refer the matter to the Barangay Lupon (Lupon) for
arbitration in accordance with the provisions of the Katarungang Pambarangay Law.
Consequently, the proceedings before the MCTC were suspended, and the case was
remanded to the Lupon for resolution.
● Thereafter, the Lupon issued a Certification to File Action due to the refusal of the
Manacnes spouses to enter into an Agreement for Arbitration and their insistence that
the case should go to court. The Certification, as well as the records of the case, were
forwarded to the MCTC.
● An Order was issued by the MCTC, once more remanding the matter for conciliation
by the Lupon and ordering the Lupon to render an Arbitration Award thereon.
According to the MCTC, based on the records of the case, an Agreement for
Arbitration was executed by the parties concerned; however, the Lupon failed to issue
an Arbitration Award as provided under the Katarungang Pambarangay Law, so that,
the case must be returned to the Lupon until an Arbitration Award is rendered.
In compliance with the MCTC Order, the Lupon rendered an Arbitration Award ordering
herein petitioner to retrieve the land upon payment to the spouses Manacnes for the
improvements on the land. Aggrieved, Leoncios widow, Florentina Manacnes, repudiated
the Arbitration Award but her repudiation was rejected by the Lupon. Thereafter, the
MCTC was furnished with copies of the Arbitration Award.
Issue:
● Whether or not the proceedings before the Lupon were valid.
Held:
● What is compulsory under the Katarungang Pambarangay Law is that there be a
confrontation between the parties before the Lupon Chairman or the Pangkat and
that a certification be issued that no conciliation or settlement has been reached, as
attested to by the Lupon or Pangkat Chairman, before a case falling within the
authority of the Lupon may be instituted in court or any other government office for
adjudication. [18] In other words, the only necessary pre-condition before any case
falling within the authority of the Lupon or the Pangkat may be filed before a court is
that there has been personal confrontation between the parties but despite earnest
efforts to conciliate, there was a failure to amicably settle the dispute. It should be
emphasized that while the spouses Manacnes appeared before the Lupon during the
initial hearing for the conciliation proceedings, they refused to sign the Agreement for
Arbitration form, which would have signified their consent to submit the case for
arbitration. Therefore, upon certification by the Lupon ng Tagapamayapa that the
confrontation before the Pangkat failed because the spouses Manacnes refused to
submit the case for arbitration and insisted that the case should go to court, the MCTC
should have continued with the proceedings in the case for recovery of possession
which it suspended in order to give way for the possible amicable resolution of the
case through arbitration before the Lupon ng Tagapamayapa.

______