Pang-Et VS Manacnes

PANG-ET VS MANACNES-DAO-AS
HELD:
It would seem from the Order of the MCTC, which again remanded the case for arbitration to the Lupon ng
Tagapamayapa, that it is compulsory on the part of the parties to submit the case for arbitration until an
arbitration award is rendered by the Lupon. This, to our minds, is contrary to the very nature of the proceedings
under the Katarungang Pambarangay Law which espouses the principle of voluntary acquiescence of the
disputing parties to amicable settlement.
What is compulsory under the Katarungang Pambarangay Law is that there be a confrontation between the
parties before the Lupon Chairman or the Pangkat and that a certification be issued that no conciliation or
settlement has been reached, as attested to by the Lupon or Pangkat Chairman, before a case falling within the
authority of the Lupon may be instituted in court or any other government office for adjudication.18 In other
words, the only necessary pre-condition before any case falling within the authority of the Lupon or the Pangkat
may be filed before a court is that there has been personal confrontation between the parties but despite earnest
efforts to conciliate, there was a failure to amicably settle the dispute. It should be emphasized that while the
spouses Manacnes appeared before the Lupon during the initial hearing for the conciliation proceedings, they
refused to sign the Agreement for Arbitration form, which would have signified their consent to submit the case
for arbitration. Therefore, upon certification by the Lupon ng Tagapamayapa that the confrontation before the
Pangkat failed because the spouses Manacnes refused to submit the case for arbitration and insisted that the case
should go to court, the MCTC should have continued with the proceedings in the case for recovery of
possession which it suspended in order to give way for the possible amicable resolution of the case through
arbitration before the Lupon ng Tagapamayapa.
Petitioner's assertion that the parties must be bound by their respective counsels' agreement to submit the case
for arbitration and thereafter enter into an amicable settlement is imprecise. What was agreed to by the parties'
respective counsels was the remand of the case to the Lupon ng Tagapamayapa for conciliation proceedings and
not the actual amicable settlement of the case. As stated earlier, the parties may only be compelled to appear
before the Lupon ng Tagapamayapa for the necessary confrontation, but not to enter into any amicable
settlement, or in the case at bar, to sign the Agreement for Arbitration. Thus, when the Manacnes spouses
personally appeared during the initial hearing before the Lupon ng Tagapamayapa, they had already complied
with the agreement during the pre-trial to submit the case for conciliation proceedings. Their presence during
said hearing is already their acquiescence to the order of the MCTC remanding the case to the Lupon for
conciliation proceedings, as there has been an actual confrontation between the parties despite the fact that no
amicable settlement was reached due to the spouses Manacnes' refusal to sign the Agreement for Arbitration.
Furthermore, the MCTC should not have persisted in ordering the Lupon ng Tagapamayapa to render an
arbitration award upon the refusal of the spouses Manacnes to submit the case for arbitration since such
arbitration award will not bind the spouses. As reflected in Section 413 of the Revised Katarungang
Pambarangay Law, in order that a party may be bound by an arbitration award, said party must have agreed in
writing that they shall abide by the arbitration award of the Lupon or the Pangkat. Like in any other contract,
parties who have not signed an agreement to arbitrate will not be bound by said agreement since it is axiomatic
that a contract cannot be binding upon and cannot be enforced against one who is not a party to it.19 In view of
the fact that upon verification by the Pangkat Chairman, in order to settle the issue of whether or not they intend
to submit the matter for arbitration, the spouses Manacnes refused to affix their signature or thumb mark on the
Agreement for Arbitration Form, the Manacnes spouses cannot be bound by the Agreement for Arbitration and
the ensuing arbitration award since they never became privy to any agreement submitting the case for
arbitration by the Pangkat.

Pang-Et VS Manacnes

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Pang-Et VS Manacnes

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Pang-Et VS Manacnes

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PANG-ET VS MANACNES-DAO-AS

You might also like