GALUBA v. LAURETA;
157 SCRA 827
1/29/88
Doctrines:
1.) Conciliation process at the barangay level is a condition precedent to the filing of a complaint in court; Non-compliance with the condition precedent affects the sufficiency of plaintiffs cause of action.
2.) Once the parties have signed an amicable settlement, any party who finds reasons to reject it must do so by filing a sworn statement of the repudiation with the barangay captain pursuant to Sec. 13 of PD 1508.
3.) Any party who fails to avail himself of the remedy under Sec. 13 of PD 1508 must face the consequences of the amicable settlement as he can no longer file an action in court to redress his grievances.
4.) Amicable settlement and arbitration award have the force and effect of a final judgment of a court unless repudiation has been made within the ten-day period or a petition for nullification of the award has been filed in court.
5.) PD 1508 does not provide fora judicial procedure for annulment of an amicable settlement because the remedy of repudiation supplants the remedy of a court annulment; Petition for nullification under Sec. 11 of PD 1508 refers to an arbitration award and not to an amicable settlement.
6.) Primordial objective for enactment of PD1508; To allow court actions assailing unrepudiated amicable settlements would exacerbate congestion of court dockets.
Facts:
In a quitclaim and waiver executed on July 10. 1982, Alfredo and Revelina Laureta ceded to petitioner Harry Galaba all their rights and interests over a house and lot located in Quezon Hill, Baguio City for P70,000. Petitioner paid the Lauretas P50,000 with the balance payable later.
When P18,000 of the balance remained unpaid, the parties brought the matter before the barangay captain of Victoria Village in Baguio City. On February 10, 1984, the parties entered into an amicable settlement whereby they agreed that the P18,000 would be paid in monthly installments starting April, 1984 and that non-compliance therewith would mean execution in accordance with the Barangay Law.
A month later, petitioner discovered that the house he had bought was encroaching on the adjoining lot, that the owner thereof was demanding payment for such encroachment, and that there were arrears on electric bills and taxes amounting to P6,117. Consequently, on July 17, 1984, he filed in the office of the barangay captain of Victoria Village an unsworn complaint for the annulment of the amicable settlement. He alleged therein that his consent to said settlement had been vitiated by mistake or fraud and therefore, the amicable settlement should be annulled and a new one entered into by the parties.
Meanwhile, the Lauretas filed in the MTC of Baguio City, a motion for the issuance of a writ of execution based on the amicable settlement. As the inferior court issued the writ, petitioner filed in the RTC of Baguio City a complaint for the annulment of the amicable settlement with prayer for a writ of preliminary injunction and/or restraining order.
Held:
Once the parties have signed an amicable settlement, any party who finds reasons to reject it must do so in accordance with Section 13 of P.D. 1508 which states;
"Sec. 13. Repudiation. — Any party to the dispute may, within ten (10) days from the date of the settlement, repudiate the same by filing with the Barangay Captain a statement to that effect sworn to before him, where the consent is vitiated by fraud, violence or intimidation. Such repudiation shall be sufficient basin for the issuance of the certification for filing of a complaint, provided for in Section 6 hereof,"
Pursuant to P.D. 1508, Section 12. Rule VI of the Katarungang Pambarangay Rules failure to repudiate the settlement or the arbitration agreement within the time limits respectively set in Section 10 thereof, shall be deemed a waiver of the right to challenge on said grounds, i.e.. fraud. violence or intimidation.
Any party, therefore, who fails to avail himself of the remedy set forth in Section 13 must face the consequences of the amicable settlement for he can no longer file an action in court to redress his grievances arising from said settlement.
It should be emphasized that under Section 11 of said law, "the amicable settlement and arbitration award shall have the force and effect of a final judgment of a court upon the expiration of the ten (10) days from the date thereof unless repudiation of the settlement has been made or a petition for nullification of the award as been filed before the proper city or municipal court."
Hence. the lower court correctly held that P.D. 1508 does not provide for a judicial procedure for the annulment of an amicable settlement because the remedy of repudiation supplants the remedy of a court annulment. An aggrieved party may only resort to a court action after he has repudiated the settlement in accordance with Section 13 as Section 6 clearly states that repudiation is a pre-condition to the filing of a complaint regarding any matter within the authority of the Lupong Thgapayapa. It should be clarified, however, that the "petition for nullification" mentioned in Section 11 refers to an arbitration award pursuant to Section 7 of the same law and not to an amicable settlement.
Having failed to repudiate the amicable settlement within the ten-day period, petitioner is left with no recourse but to abide by its terms. He therefore, acted correctly when he eventually fully satisfied his obligation pursuant to the amicable settlement, thereby, rendering his case moot and academic.