Professional Documents
Culture Documents
001235
COURT OF APPEALS
-o0o-
JASMINE ABUBAKAR
Defendant-Appellant
-versus-
RICHARD BELLA
Plaintiff/Appellee
X-------------------------------x
---------------------------------
1|Page
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
ARGUMENT---
PRAYER…………………………………………………………………….. 6
Law Discussed:
The Revised Katarungang Pambarangay Law under R.A. 7160, otherwise known as the
local Government Code of 1991, effective on January 1, 1992, and which
repealed P.D. 1508, introduced substantial changes not only in the authority
granted to the Lupong Tagapamayapa but also in the procedure to be observed
in the settlement of disputes within the authority of the Lupon.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR
2|Page
THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN DENYING THE MOTION TO DISMISS
FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION OVER THE SUBJECT MATTER
FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE CONDITION PRECEDENT
REQUIREMENT OF CERTIFICATE TO FILE ACTION
FROM THE BARANGAY
On January 3, 2019 herein Apellee represented by Atty. Hilary Duff filed with the
Regional Trial Court 9 Branch 17, Zamboanga City the instant complaint against
Jasmine Abubakar, praying among others, that judgment be rendered in his favor and
order defendant to pay the following: (1) The sum of One Million Pesos (1,000,000) plus
interest at the rate of ten percent (10%) per month as stipulated in the promissory note;
(2) Moral and exemplary damages at the sum discretion of the court; (3) Attorney’s fees
amounting to One Hundred Thousand Pesos (P100,000) and appearance fee of Three
Thousand Five Hundred Pesos (P3,500) per hearing; (4) Litigation expenses amounting
to Twenty Thousand Pesos (P20,000).
Appellee alleged as his cause of action that on January 1, 2005, the Appellant
borrowed from the Appellee a sum of money amounting to One Million Pesos
(1,000,000) with an agreed interest of ten percent (10%) per month, payable within six
(6) months as evidenced by a promissory note. That as shown in the promissory note,
the indebtedness of the defendant became due and demandable on July 1, 2005. That
the six-month period had elapsed and despite repeated demands both written and
verbal to which defendant personally received, Appellant failed, neglected and refused
to fulfill obligations without just and valid grounds to the continued damage and
prejudice of the plaintiff. That the Appellee, in order to comply herein Appellant to pay
her obligations, brought the matter to the court for a civil action.
That on February 9, 2019 Appellant filed her Answer with Affirmative Defenses
(with Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction). On February 20, 2019 both parties
filed their respective memorandum. The case was referred to mediation and the pre-trial
conference was set on February 22, 2019 at 8:30 a.m.
On March 4, 2019 the lower court denied the Motion to Dismiss for Lack of
Jurisdiction. The lower court in its March 4, 2019 Order states that “the requirement for
Barangay Conciliation and to secure the Certificate to File Action is not necessarily a
3|Page
material document that the Complainant needs to comply before an action is filed at
court, he may or may not comply with such requirement. Attached is the certified true
copy of the three page March 1, 2019 Order as Annex A for the Defendant-Appellant
for the Court of Appeals’ file copy.
Appellant filed their Motion for Reconsideration to the March 4, 2019 Order and
Appellee their Comment/Opposition (to the Appellant’s MR). That on March 11, 2019
the lower court issued an order denying the motion for reconsideration thus, this appeal
was taken as a due course by the defendant-appellant. Attached is the one-page March
11, 2019 Order as Annex B for the Defendant-Appellant for the Court of Appeals’ file
copy.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
On January 3, 2019, a civil action was filed against the herein Appellant for
Collection of Sum of Money. The Appellee submitted documentary evidence to prove
his claim. However, the Plaintiff failed to include the Certificate to File Action that has to
be secured from the Barangay in compliance with the Katarungang Pambarangay Law.
Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction on this ground was submitted by the
Appellant dated February 9, 2019 but the same was denied by the lower court in its
order dated March 4, 2019.
ARGUMENT
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR
That the court has no jurisdiction of the defendant and/or of the subject matter of
the action, for the reason that the same did not comply with the condition precedent for
the filing of such action as provided by law;
4|Page
2. That in the absence of a certification therefrom attesting that no
amicable settlement is reached the action has not yet ripen into
actionable cause in court;
5|Page
It is clear from the foregoing that compliant in the instant case is fatally defective.
This being the case the complaint in the instant case should be dismissed even on this
ground alone.
PRAYER
Submitted this 13th day of March 2019 from Zamboanga City to Cagayan de Oro
City, Philippines.
6|Page