lt

REMEDIAL LAW
Handout No. 005-B

REMINDERS IN KATARUNGANG

PAMB~RANGA Y

Nature of barangay proceedings

1.

The proceedings before the Lupong Tagapamayapa or

Tagapaglcnsnndo of the Barangay are not judicial proceedings (Sec.
Book III, R.A. 716).

the Panglrnt ng
Ch. 71 Title Oner

Objectives of barangay conciliation

1.

The primordial objective of Presidential Decree No. 1508 is to reduce the number
of court litigations and prevent the deterioration of the quality of justice which has been
brought by the indiscriminate filing of cases in the courts.

2.

To ensure this objective, Section 6 of Presidential Decree No. 1508 requires the
parties to undergo a conciliation process before the Lupon Chairman or the Pangkat ng
Tng11pagkas11ndo as a precondition to filing a complaint in court subject to certain
exceptions which are inapplicable to this case. The said section has been declared
compulsory in nature (Librada M. Aquino, vs. Ernest S. Laure, G.R. No. 153567, February
2008).

How to commence an action before the barangay

1.

Upon payment of the appropriate filing fee, any individual who has a cause of
action against another individual involving any matter within the authority of the /upon
may complain, orally or in writing to the chairman of the lupon (Sec. 410 (a), RA. 7160).

Personal appearance of the parties in the conciliation proceedings required; Rationale;

Prohibition of lawyers
1.

The above-quoted prov1s1on clearly requires the personal appearance of the

parties in Katnrungan Pambarangay conciliation proceedings, unassisted by counsel or
representative.

2.

The rationale behind the personal appearance requirement is to enable

the lupon to secure first hand and direct information about the facts and issues, the
exception being in cases where minors or incompetents are parties. There can be no
quibbling that laymen of goodwill can easily agree to conciliate and settle their disputes
between themselves without what sometimes is the unsettling assistance of lawyers
whose presence could sometimes obfuscate and confuse issues. Worse still, the
participation of lawyers with their penchant to use their ar.Jlytical skills and legal
knowledge tend to prolong instead of expedite settlement of the case (Atty. Evelyn ].
J'v1agno vs. Atty. Olivia Velasco- Jacoba, November 22,
A.C. No.
1

Rule on the referral to the barangay for conciliation

1.

The referral to barangay for conciliation is a pre-condition to the filing of

complaint in court.

2.

No complaint, petition, action, or proceeding involving any matter within the

authority of the lupon shall be filed or instituted directly in court or any other

MEDIAL LAW

Page 2 of 6

government office for adjudication, unless there has been a confrontation between the
parties before the Zupan chairman or the pangkat, and that no conciliation or settlement
has been reached as certified by the Zupan secretary or pangkat secretary as attested to by
the !upon chairman or pangkat chairman or unless the settlement has been repudiated by
the parties thereto (Sec. 412 1 R.A. 7160).
Exceptions
I.

Under Sec. 408 of the same Code, parties actually residing in the same city or
municipality are bound to submit their disputes to the Lupon for conciliation/amicable
settlement, unless otherwise provided therein:
SEC 408. Subject Matter for Amicable Settlement; Exception Thereto. The lupon of each barangay shall have authority to bring together the parties
actually residing in the same city or municipality for amicable settlement of all
disputes except:
(a)

Where one party is the government or any subdivision or instrumentality

thereof;

(b)

Where one party is a public officer or employee, and the dispute relates to
the performance of his official fw1ctions;

(c)

Offenses punishable by imprisonment exceeding one (1) year or a fine

exceeding Five Thousand pesos (P-5,000.00);

(d)

Offenses where there is no private offended party;

(e)

Where the dispute involves real properties located in different cities or

municipalities unless the parties thereto agree to submit their differences
to amicable settlement by an appropriate lupon;

(f)

Disputes involving parties who actually reside in bamngays of different

cities or municipalities, except where such barangay units adjoin each
other and the parties thereto agree to submit their differences to amicable
settlement by an appropriate Zupan;

(g)

Such other classes of disputes, which the President may determine in the
interest of justice or upon the recommendation of the Secretary of Justice.

Other instances where the party can go directly with the court
L

The following are the instances where the parties may

directly to court:

"SEC 412 Conciliation.- xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx

(a)

Where the accused is under detention;

(b)

Where a person has otherwise been deprived of personal liberty calling

for hnbens corpus proceedings;

(c)

Where actions are coupled with provisional remedies such as preliminary

injunction,
attachment,
delivery of personal
property,
and
support pendente lite; and

REMEDIAL LAW

Page 3of6

(d)

Where the action may otherwise be barred by the statute of limitations.

Conciliation among members of indigenous cultural communities.~ The

customs and traditions of indigenous cultural communities shall be applied in
settling disputes between members of the cultural communities (Sec. 412).

New complaint should be filed before the barangay against the heirs of the original
respondent otherwise, there is non-compliance of the rule
l.

The Court, thus, rules that the petitioner's complaint against respondent Heirs of
Carlos Palanca was premature. It bears stressing that they were not impleaded by the
petitioner as parties-respondents before the Lupan. The petitioner hied her complaint
solely against respondent Josephine Pablo. Moreover, the said respondent heirs were
not privy to the said agreement, and, as such, were not bound by it. Section 412 of the
Local Government Code.

2.

If the complainant/plaintiff fails to comply with the requirements of the Local

Government Code, such complaint filed with the court may be dismissed for failure to
exhaust all administrative remedies (Estela L Berba, vs. Josephine Pablo and the Heirs
Carlos Pnlanca G.R. No. 160032, November 11, 2005).
1

Effect of non-compliance to the requisite barangay conciliation

I.

A motion to dismiss the complaint may be filed on the ground of failure to

comply with a condition precedent (Sec. 1 (j)J Rule 16 of the 1997 Rules of Court).

2.

It .is well-settled that the non-referral of a case for barangay conciliation when so
required under the law is not jurisdictional in nature and may therefore be deemed
waived if not raised seasonably in a motion to dismiss. The Court notes that although
petitioners could have invoked the ground of prematurity of the causes of action against
them due to the failure to submit the dispute to Lupon prior to the filing of the cases as
soon as they received the complaints against them, petitioners raised the said ground
only after their arraignment (Fidel M. Bafiares Li, et. al., vs. Elizabeth BalisinJ;;, et al., C.R.
No. 132624. March 13, 2000).

Nature of the dismissal of the case for failure to refer the case with the barangay
1.

The dismissal is without prejudice (Sec. 412 in rel. to Sec. 408 of R.A. 7160).

Remedy of the plaintiff in case of dismissal in summary proceedings cases

I.

Where there is non-compliance with the requirement it shall be dismissed

without prejudice, and may be revived only after such requirement shall have been
complied with (Sec. 18, Rules on Summary Proceedings).

2.

Equally erroneous is private respondents' contention that the rules regarding

finality of judgments under the Revised Rules of Court do not apply to cases covered by
the 1991 Revised Rule on Summary Procedure. Private respondents claim that Section 18
of the 1991 Revised Rule on Summary Procedure allows the revival of cases which were
dismissed for failure to submit the same to conciliation at the barangay level, as required

REMEDIAL LAW

Page 4 of 6

under Section 412 in relation to Section 408 of the Local Government Code. TI1e said
provision states:

Referral to Lupon. Cases requiring referral to the Lupon for

conciliation under the provisions of Presidential Decree
No. 1508 where there is no showing of compliance with
such requirement, shall be dismissed without prejudice,
and may be revived only after such requirement sha11 have
been complied with. This provision shall not apply to
criminal cases where the accused was arrested without a
warrant.
There is nothing in the aforecited provision which supports private respondents'
view. Section 18 merely states that when a case covered by the 1991 Revised Rule on
Summary Procedure is dismissed without prejudice for non-referral of the issues to
the Lupon, the same may be revived only after the dispute subject of the dismissed case
is submitted to barangay conciliation as required under the Local Government Code.
There is no declaration to the effect that said case may be revived by mere motion even
after the fifteen-day period within which to appeal or to file a motion for reconsideration
has lapsed (Fidel M. Bafiares Li, et. al., vs. Elizabeth Balising, et al., G.R. No. 132624. March
13, 2000).

Plaintiff's remedy
1.

Refiling of the case, and compliance with barangay conciliation.

Dismissal of the case by the court motu propio

1.

The court may not dismiss the case motu propio on the ground of failure to
comply with the bamagay conciliation since it is not one of the grounds mentioned
under Sec. 1, Rule 9.

Effect of amicable settlement

1.

We agree with the contention of the petitioners that under Section 416 of the
LGC, the amicable settlement executed by the parties before the I.upon on the arbitration
award has the force and effect of a final judgment of a court upon the expiration of ten (10)
days from the date thereof, unless the settlement is repudiated within the period
therefor, where the consent is vitiated by force, violence or intintidation, or a petition to
nullify the award is filed before the proper city or municipal court. The repudiation of
the settlement shall be sufficient basis for the issuance of a certification to file a
complaint (Ma. Tcresn Vidal, Lulu Marquez, and Carlos Sobremonte, petitioners, vs. Mn.
Teresa 0. Escueta, represented by Hernwn 0. Escueta, G.R. No. 156228, December 10, 2003).

Execution of the agreement after the six month-period under Sec. 417; venue
1.

Parenthetically, the Katarungang

Regulations, Rule VII, Section 2 provides:

REMEDIAL LAW

Parnbarangay Implementing

Rules

Page 5 of 6

and

SECTION 2. Modes Execution. - The amicable settlement or arbitration

award may be enforced by execution by the Lupon within six [6] months
from date of the settlement or date of receipt of the award or from the date the
obligation stipulated in the settlement or adjudged_in the arbitrCJJion award
becomes due and demandable. After the lapse of such time, the settlement or
award may be enforced by the appropriate local trial court pursuant to the
applicable provisions of the Rules of Court. An amicable settlement reached in a
case referred by the Court having jurisdiction over the case to the Lupon shall be
enforced by execution by the said court. (Underlining supplied).
2.

By express provision of Section 417 of the LGC, an action for the enforcement of
the settlement should be instituted in the proper municipal or city court. This is
regardless of the nature of the complaint before the Lupon, and the relief prayed for
therein. The venue for such actions is governed by Rule 4, Section 1 of the 1997 Rules of
Civil Procedure, as amended. An action for the enforcement of a settlement is not one of
those covered by the Rules on Summary Procedure in civil c0ses; hence, the ru Jes on
regular procedure shall apply, as provided for in Section t Rule 5 of the Rules of Civil
Procedure, as amended (Ma. Teresa Vidal, Lulu Marquez, and Carlos Sobremonte, petitioners,
vs. Ma. Teresa 0. Escueta, represented by Herman 0. Escueta, G.R. No. 156228, Dece111ber 10,
2003).

MEDIAL LAW

Page 6 of 6