Angel Boleyley v. Hon.

Clarence Villanueva, presiding Judge, Branch 7, Regional Trial

Court, Baguio City, and Albert S. Surla
Facts:

Petitioner filed with the Regional Trial Court of Baguio City a complaint against private
respondent Albert Surla for collection of a sum of money. Private respondent filed a motion to
dismiss the complaint on the ground that petitioner did not comply with the Revised Katarungan
Pambarangay Law requiring as a condition for the filing of a complaint in court referral of the
matter to the barangay lupon chairman or the pangkat, for conciliation or settlement. Petitioner
opposed the motion on the ground that private respondent was not a resident of Baguio City so
that the dispute involving the parties was not within the authority of the LUPON to bring
together for conciliation or settlement. Thereafter, the trial court issued an order dismissing the
case for being premature, for not having been referred to the barangay lupon. Petitioner’s motion
for reconsideration was, however, denied by the trial court. Hence, this petition for certiorari.

Issue:

Whether or not petitioner was bound to refer the dispute to the barangay lupon or pangkat for
conciliation or settlement before he could file an action for collection with the regional trial court

Ruling:

It is a basic rule of procedure that "jurisdiction of the court over the subject matter of the
action is determined by the allegations of the complaint, irrespective of whether or not the
plaintiff is entitled to recover upon all or some of the claims asserted therein. The jurisdiction of
the court cannot be made to depend upon the defenses set up in the answer or upon the motion to
dismiss, for otherwise, the question of jurisdiction would almost entirely depend upon the
defendant

Petitioners complaint implies that the parties do not reside in the same city or municipality.
The venue of the action is not affected by the filing of respondent’s motion to dismiss stating that
he also resided in Baguio City. That is not decisive to determine the proper venue. Consequently,
the Supreme Court ruled that there is no need of prior referral of the dispute to the barangay
lupon or pangkat in the absence of showing in the complaint itself that the parties reside in the
same city or municipality. Thus, in dismissing the complaint for insufficiency of cause of action
or pre-maturity, the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess
of jurisdiction, entitling petitioner to the relief prayed for. The Court, therefore, granted the
petition and annulled the orders of the RTC.