This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2008-02-18 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| It is true that the precise technical effect of failure to comply with the requirement of Section 412 of the Local Government Code on barangay conciliation (previously contained in Section 5 of Presidential Decree No. 1508) is much the same effect produced by non-exhaustion of administrative remedies -- the complaint becomes afflicted with the vice of pre-maturity; and the controversy there alleged is not ripe for judicial determination. The complaint becomes vulnerable to a motion to dismiss.[22] Nevertheless, the conciliation process is not a jurisdictional requirement, so that non-compliance therewith cannot affect the jurisdiction which the court has otherwise acquired over the subject matter or over the person of the defendant.[23] | |||||
|
2005-06-23 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Moreover, since convenience is the raison d'etre of the rules on venue,[24] venue stipulation should be deemed merely permissive, and that interpretation should be adopted which most serves the parties' convenience.[25] Contrawise, the rules mandated by the Rules of Court should govern.[26] Accordingly, since the present case for the collection of sum of money filed by herein respondent is a personal action,[27] we find no compelling reason why it could not be instituted in the RTC of Naga City, the place where plaintiff resides. | |||||