Andrew Anthony S. Arevalo

Eufrocina Filomena vs Immanuel Medina

Preliminaries:The case for mediation through the Katarungang Pambarangay stemmed from the non-payment of rentals

Facts:Immanuel Medina, respondent herein, is the present occupant of the apartment owned by Mrs. Filomena, the complainant in this case. Respondent entered into a rental agreement with the complainant and agreed to pay the amount of six thousand pesos (P 6,000.00) as monthly rentals but prior to them (respondent) moving in; they agreed to pay one (1) month advance and two (2) months deposit. The problem started on the month of May when the respondent reneged on their payment. The complainant called the respondent regarding the said payment but they eventually agreed to deduct it on the deposit. On the following month (June), the respondent paid the monthly rental but the complainant demanded that the respondent should replenish the deposit because the deposit can only be consumed if in the event that they will vacate the premises. On the month of July, the respondent paid the rental but again failed to give the used deposit. In view of this, the complainant, again, insisted that the respondent should pay the deposit. Because of the insistence of the complainant, the respondent stated that they will be moving out of the apartment and demanded that the remaining deposit be given. The complainant agreed but with the condition that the payment be made before the barangay and that the respondent will vacate the premises within two (2) days. Both of the parties signed the said agreement before the blotter book of the barangay and the complainant handing the money to the respondent. After three days, the complainant visited the apartment but the respondent was still there stating that they will not leave and that they still have 90 days grace period under the law to vacate the premises. Hence, the complainant instituted such action in the barangay.

Issue:Whether or not the respondent is correct in insisting that they still should stay in the apartment of the complainant?

ADR Mode: The Local Government Code states that the mode used by the Katarungang Pambarangay through the lupons is conciliation but the mode that prevails within the proceeding is in the form of mediation because of the presence and the regulation of the conversation by the third party.Chronological Series of Events:1. The parties appear before the pangkat ng tagapamayapa (lupons) by virtue of summons issued by the barangay.2. The proceeding is now called to order and the pangkat, together with the secretary of the Katarungang Pambarangay, shall read the complaint and recognize the parties present.3. The pangkat will first let the complainant explain, add, or further elaborate the complaint she lodged.4. The pangkat, after the turn of the complainant, will hear the side of the respondent.5. The pangkat will let the parties exchange their grievances while keeping the proceeding orderly and with courtesy. Any boisterous remarks, disrespectful insinuations, and unnecessary comments will be addressed by the pangkat.6. The parties are encouraged to enter into amicable settlement while reminding the parties that such settlement can be enforced by them and with the courts.7. The secretary shall produce the type written agreement made by the parties and will be read before them and asking them if they understood the contents of the said agreement. The parties are given time to examine the said document.8. The parties will be asked to sign the documents before the persons and parties present.9. If the parties failed to settle, a new hearing will be scheduled again to thresh out their differences.

Reaction:On September 9, 2014, I was fortunate enough to be allowed to observe a conciliation/mediation under RA 7160 or the Katarungang Pambarangay in Barangay Baesa. The case I observed was about the unpaid rentals of an apartment located in Manotok Subdivision Baesa, Quezon City. Those present were Lupons Alvin Fortea and Thelma Villares, a barangay secretary named Tess Caubalejo under the alias of Bagets, and the opposing parties. They were called upon by virtue of a summons/invitation. The Lupon was the one who initiated the proceeding stating the facts of the incident. The complainant was the first allowed to speak and asked by the lupon if she would like to add to the facts the lupon stated earlier. The lupon acted like an arbiter who moderated the proceedings because the respondent was agitated and keeps on butting in while the complainant was talking. The proceeding was generally orderly despite the fact that the respondent was argumentative.At the end of the mediation, both of them agreed that the respondent will pay the 2 months overstay and that they will vacate the premises within 5 days. The secretary of the Lupon, who was taking down notes of the conversation went outside the room and, after 15 minutes, presented a type written document wherein it stipulated their agreement. Both of the parties affixed their signature together with the Lupon and a Kagawad. I was informed that the parties only agreed on the third hearing. The proceeding lasted for 1 hour and 30 minutes. Attached herewith is a photo of me together with the Katarungang Pambarangay staff. Unfortunately, I was not allowed to take pictures during the proceedings because the parties did not consent of such actions.

From left to right: Mr. Alvin V. Fortea (Lupon), Ms. Thess Caubalejo (Secretary), Ms. Thelma Villares (Lupon), and myself.