JEHAIDAH V.

FRIGINAL
Alternative Dispute Resolution
Master of Laws (LLM)
PLM – Graduate School of Law
Professor: Dr. Angela C. Ylagan
__________________________________

Pang-et v. Dao-as,
G.R. No. 167261, March 2, 2007

Petitioner Rosario Pang-et filed an action for Recovery of Possession

of real property situated in Sagada before the Municipal Circuit Trial Court
against spouses Leoncio and Florentina Manacnes.

During the Pre-Trial, both parties, through their respective counsels,

agreed to refer the matter to the Barangay Lupon, thereby suspending the
proceedings before the Municipal Circuit Trial Court.

Consequently, a Certificate to File Action (CFA) was issued due to the

refusal of spouses Manacnes to enter into agreement and their insistence for
the case to be resolved in court.

The Municipal Circuit Trial Court remanded the case to the Lupon
ordering the latter to render an Arbitration Award because accordingly, based
on the records of the case, agreement for Arbitration was executed by the
parties. In compliance thereto, the Lupon rendered an Arbitration Award.
However, Florentina repudiated the award, but her repudiation was rejected
by the Lupon.

Meanwhile, petitioner filed a Motion for Execution of Arbitration Award.

On the other hand, Florentina filed a Motion for the Resumption of the
Proceedings in the original case and praying for the court to consider her
repudiation.

The Municipal Circuit Trial Court denied the Motion of Florentina ruling
that their failure to take action within the 10-day reglementary period provided
under the Katarungay Pambarangay Law rendered the Arbitration Award final
and executory.

A Notice of Execution of Award was issued by the Punong Barangay,

but the same was never implemented. As a recourse, petitioner filed an action
for Enforcement of the Arbitration Award, which action was opposed by the
heir of spouses Manacnes, respondent Catherine Manacnes-Dao-as,
contending that the award was not personally signed by spouses Manacnes
and that it was written in English, a language not understood by the parties.

The Municipal Circuit Trial Court dismissed the action for Enforcement
of Arbitration Award ruling among others that the agreement is inefficacious
for being violative of the provision of R.A. No. 7160, which mandates the

Page 1 of 2
JEHAIDAH V. FRIGINAL
Alternative Dispute Resolution
Master of Laws (LLM)
PLM – Graduate School of Law
Professor: Dr. Angela C. Ylagan
__________________________________
personal appearance of the parties and that the Arbitration Award but must
written in Kankanaey language and not English.

Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration but the same was denied.
Hence the case was appealed to the Regional Trial Court which reversed and
set aside the decision of the Municipal Circuit Trial Court and ordered that the
case be remanded for further proceedings.

Aggrieved by the reversal, respondent filed a petition before the Court

of Appeals, which reversed the decision of the Regional Trial Court and
reinstated the decision of the Municipal Circuit Trial Court.

Petitioner elevated the case to the Supreme Court contending that the
submission of the case to the Lupon was mutually agreed and the parties
must be bound by such agreement.

According to the Supreme Court, it must be stressed that spouses

Manacnes refused to sign the Arbitral Award and were adamant to proceed
with the case before the court.

The Supreme Court ruled that the object of the Katarungang

Pambarangay is the amicable settlement of dispute freely and voluntarily. The
parties are encouraged to settle their dispute without enduring the vigors of
court litigation. However, parties are not compelled to settle their controversy
in the Lupon, as they are free to find recourse in court.

Page 2 of 2