Ledesma

v. Court of Appeals 211 SCRA 753

Facts:
Petitioner Cecilia U. Ledesma is the owner-lessor of an apartment
building. Two units were leased, now unlawfully occupied,
by respondent Jose T. Dizon. The said lease was originally covered by
written contracts and except for the rates and duration, the terms and
conditions of said contracts were impliedly renewed on a ‘month to
month’ basis. Respondent violated one of the terms of the lease that is
that of monthly payments. Upon failure of respondent to honor the
demand letters, petitioner referred the matter to the Barangay for
conciliation, which eventually issued a certification to file action.
Petitioner was assisted by her son, Raymond U. Ledesma (who is not a
lawyer) during the Barangay proceeding as she was suffering from
recurring psychological ailments a scan be seen from prescription and
receipts by her psychiatrist. Due to the stubborn refusal of the
respondent to vacate the premises, petitioner was constrained to retain
the services of a lawyer to initiate the ejectment proceeding. MTC
ordered respondent to vacate. RTC affirmed the MTC. Respondent
however found favor in the CA because of lack of cause of action. CA
held that petitioner failed compliance with Sections 6 and 9 of PD
1508.Petitioner submits that said issue, not having been raised by
respondent in the court below cannot be raised for the first time on
appeal.
Issue:
Whether there is non-compliance with Sections 6 and 9 of PD 1508.
Held:
When respondent stated that he was never summoned or subpoenaed
by the Barangay, he, in effect, was stating that since he was never
summoned, he could not appear in person for the needed confrontation
and/or amicable settlement. Without the mandatory confrontation, no
complaint could be filed with the MTC.
Moreover, petitioner tries to show that her failure to appear before the
Barangay was because of her recurring psychological ailments. But for
the entire year of 1998, there is no indication at all that petitioner went
to see her psychiatrist. The only conclusion is that 1998 was a lucid
interval. There was therefore no excuse then for her non-appearance.
Therefore, she cannot be represented by counsel or by attorney-in-fact
who is next of kin. Her non-compliance with PD 1508 legally barred her
from pursuing case in the MTC.