Facts: Michael and Annabel entered into an amicable settlement, evidenced by a document denominated as "kasunduan'' wherein Michael agreed to pay Annabel the amount of P250,000.00 on specific dates. The kasunduan was not repudiated. When Michael failed to honor the kasunduan, the Barangay Captain failed to enforce the kasunduan, and instead, issued a Certification to File Action. After about one and a half years from the date of the execution of the kasunduan, Angelita filed with the Municipal Circuit Trial Court an action to enforce the same. Michael contends that since the amount of P250,000.00 - the subject matter of the kasunduan - is in excess of MCTC's jurisdictional amount of P200,000.00, the kasunduan is beyond the MCTC's jurisdiction to hear and to resolve.
Issue: Whether or not the MCTC has the authority and jurisdiction to execute the kasunduan regardless of the amount involved
Held: We again draw attention to the provision of Section 417 of the Local Government Code that after the lapse of the six (6) month period from the date of the settlement, the agreement may be enforced by action in the appropriate city or municipal court.
The law, as written, unequivocally speaks of the "appropriate city or municipal court" as the forum for the execution of the settlement or arbitration award issued by the Lupon. Notably, in expressly conferring authority over these courts, Section 417 made no distinction with respect to the amount involved or the nature of the issue involved. Thus, there can be no question that the law's intendment was to grant jurisdiction over the enforcement of settlement/arbitration awards to the city or municipal courts regardless of the amount. A basic principle of interpretation is that words must be given their literal meaning and applied without attempted interpretation where the words of a statute are clear,' plain and free from ambiguity. (Sebastian vs. Ng, G.R. No. 164594, April 22, 2015)
Issue: Whether or not the MCTC has the authority and jurisdiction to execute the kasunduan regardless of the amount involved
Held: We again draw attention to the provision of Section 417 of the Local Government Code that after the lapse of the six (6) month period from the date of the settlement, the agreement may be enforced by action in the appropriate city or municipal court.
The law, as written, unequivocally speaks of the "appropriate city or municipal court" as the forum for the execution of the settlement or arbitration award issued by the Lupon. Notably, in expressly conferring authority over these courts, Section 417 made no distinction with respect to the amount involved or the nature of the issue involved. Thus, there can be no question that the law's intendment was to grant jurisdiction over the enforcement of settlement/arbitration awards to the city or municipal courts regardless of the amount. A basic principle of interpretation is that words must be given their literal meaning and applied without attempted interpretation where the words of a statute are clear,' plain and free from ambiguity. (Sebastian vs. Ng, G.R. No. 164594, April 22, 2015)
