KATARUNGANG PAMBARANGAY 1999

The Revised Katarungang Pambarangay Law under R. A. 7160, otherwise known as the Local
Government Code of 1991, effective on January 1, 1992 and which repealed P. D. 1508,
introduced substantial changes not only in the authority granted to the Lupong Tagapamayapa
but also in the procedure to be observed in the settlement of disputes within the authority of the
Lupon.cralaw
In order that the laudable purpose of the law may not be subverted and its effectiveness
undermined by indiscriminate, improper and/or premature issuance of certifications to file
actions in court by the Lupon or Pangkat Secretaries, attested by the Lupon/Pangkat Chairmen,
respectively, the following guidelines are hereby issued for the information of trial court judges in
cases brought before them coming from the Barangays:
I. All disputes are subject to Barangay conciliation pursuant to the Revised Katarungang
Pambarangay Law [formerly P. D. 1508, repealed and now replaced by Secs. 399-422, Chapter
VII, Title I, Book III, and Sec. 515, Title I, Book IV, R.A. 7160, otherwise known as the Local
Government Code of 1991], and prior recourse thereto is a pre-condition before filing a
complaint in court or any government offices, except in the following disputes:
[1] Where one party is the government, or any subdivision or instrumentality thereof;
[2] Where one party is a public officer or employee and the dispute relates to the
performance of his official functions;
[3] Where the dispute involves real properties located in different cities and
municipalities, unless the parties thereto agree to submit their difference to amicable
settlement by an appropriate Lupon;
[4] Any complaint by or against corporations, partnerships or juridical entities, since only
individuals shall be parties to Barangay conciliation proceedings either as complainants
or respondents [Sec. 1, Rule VI, Katarungang Pambarangay Rules];
[5] Disputes involving parties who actually reside in barangays 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
Lupon;
[6] Offenses for which the law prescribes a maximum penalty of imprisonment exceeding
one [1] year or a fine of over five thousand pesos (P5,000.00);
[7] Offenses where there is no private offended party;
[8] Disputes where urgent legal action is necessary to prevent injustice from being
committed or further continued, specifically the following:
[a] Criminal cases where accused is under police custody or detention [See Sec.
412 (b) (1), Revised Katarungang Pambarangay Law];
[b] Petitions for habeas corpus by a person illegally deprived of his rightful
custody over another or a person illegally deprived of or on acting in his behalf;
[c] Actions coupled with provisional remedies such as preliminary injunction,
attachment, delivery of personal property and support during the pendency of the
action; and cralaw
[d] Actions which may be barred by the Statute of Limitations.
[9] Any class of disputes which the President may determine in the interest of justice or
upon the recommendation of the Secretary of Justice;

[10] Where the dispute arises from the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL)
[Secs. 46 & 47, R. A. 6657];
[11] Labor disputes or controversies arising from employer-employee relations [Montoya
vs. Escayo, et al., 171 SCRA 442; Art. 226, Labor Code, as amended, which grants
original and exclusive jurisdiction over conciliation and mediation of disputes, grievances
or problems to certain offices of the Department of Labor and Employment];
[12] Actions to annul judgment upon a compromise which may be filed directly in court
[See Sanchez vs. Tupaz, 158 SCRA 459].cralaw
II. Under the provisions of R. A. 7160 on Katarungang Pambarangay conciliation, as
implemented by the Katarungang Pambarangay Rules and Regulations promulgated by the
Secretary of Justice, the certification for filing a complaint in court or any government office shall
be issued by Barangay authorities only upon compliance with the following requirements:
[1] Issued by the Lupon Secretary and attested by the Lupon Chairman (Punong
Barangay), certifying that a confrontation of the parties has taken place and that a
conciliation settlement has been reached, but the same has been subsequently
repudiated (Sec. 412, Revised Katarungang Pambarangay Law; Sec. 2[h], Rule III,
Katarungang Pambarangay Rules);
[2] Issued by the Pangkat Secretary and attested by the Pangkat Chairman certifying
that:
[a] a confrontation of the parties took place but no conciliation/settlement has been
reached (Sec. 4[f], Rule III, Katarungang Pambarangay Rules); or
[b] that no personal confrontation took place before the Pangkat through no fault of the
complainant (Sec. 4[f], Rule III, Katarungang pambarangay Rules).
[3] Issued by the Punong Barangay as requested by the proper party on the ground of
failure of settlement where the dispute involves members of the same indigenous
cultural community, which shall be settled in accordance with the customs and traditions
of that particular cultural community, or where one or more of the parties to the aforesaid
dispute belong to the minority and the parties mutually agreed to submit their dispute to
the indigenous system of amicable settlement, and there has been no settlement as
certified by the datu or tribal leader or elder to the Punong Barangay of place of
settlement (Secs. 1,4 & 5, Rule IX, Katarungang Pambarangay Rules); and
[4] If mediation or conciliation efforts before the Punong Barangay proved unsuccessful,
there having been no agreement to arbitrate (Sec. 410 [b], Revised Katarungang
Pambarangay Law; Sec. 1, c. (1), Rule III, Katarungang Pambarangay Rules), or where
the respondent fails to appear at the mediation proceeding before the Punong Barangay
(3rd par. Sec. 8, a, Rule VI, Katarungang Pambarangay Rules), the Punong Barangay
shall not cause the issuance at this stage of a certification to file action, because it is
now mandatory for him to constitute the Pangkat before whom mediation, conciliation, or
arbitration proceedings shall be held.cralaw
III. All complaints and/or informations filed or raffled to your sala/branch of the Regional Trial
Court shall be carefully read and scrutinized to determine if there has been compliance with
prior Barangay conciliation procedure under the Revised Katarungang Pambarangay Law and
its Implementing Rules and Regulations as a pre-condition to judicial action, particularly whether
the certification to file action attached to the records of the case comply with the requirements
hereinabove enumerated in Par. II;
IV. A case filed in court without compliance with prior Barangay conciliation which is a precondition for formal adjudication (Sec. 412 [a] of the Revised Katarungang Pambarangay Law)
may be dismissed upon motion of defendant/s, not for lack of jurisdiction of the court but for
failure to state a cause of action or prematurity (Royales vs. IAC, 127 SCRA 470; Gonzales vs.
CA, 151 SCRA 289), or the court may suspend proceedings upon petition of any party under

Sec. 1, Rule 21 of the Rules of Court; and refer the case motu proprio to the appropriate
Barangay authority applying by analogy Sec. 408 [g], 2nd par., of the Revised Katarungang
Pambarangay Law which reads as follows:
"The court in which non-criminal cases not falling within the authority of the Lupon under this
Code are filed may, at any time before trial, motu propio refer case to the Lupon concerned for
amicable settlement.
JURISDICTION/CASES COGNIZABLE BY SANDIGANBAYAN
Republic Act No. 8249

February 5, 1997

AN ACT FURTHER DEFINING THE JURISDICTION OF THE SANDIGANBAYAN, AMENDING

FOR THE PURPOSE PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 1606, AS AMENDED, PROVIDING
FUNDS THEREFOR, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
Section 4. Section 4 of the same decree is hereby further amended to read as follows:
"a. Violations of Republic Act No. 3019, as amended, otherwise known as the Anti-graft
and Corrupt Practices Act, Republic Act No. 1379, and Chapter II, Section 2, Title VII,
Book II of the Revised Penal Code, where one or more of the accused are officials
occupying the following positions in the government whether in a permanent, acting or
interim capacity, at the time of the commission of the offense:
"(1) Officials of the executive branch occupying the positions of regional director
and higher, otherwise classified as Grade '27' and higher, of the Compensation
and Position Classification Act of 1989 (Republic Act No. 6758), specifically
including:
"(a) Provincial governors, vice-governors, members of the sangguniang
panlalawigan and provincial treasurers, assessors, engineers and other
provincial department heads;
"(b) City mayors, vice-mayors, members of the sangguniang panlungsod,
city treasurers, assessors engineers and other city department heads;
"(c) Officials of the diplomatic service occupying the position of consul
and higher;
"(d) Philippine army and air force colonels, naval captains, and all officers
of higher rank;
"(e) Officers of the Philippine National Police while occupying the position
of provincial director and those holding the rank of senior superintendent
or higher;
"(f) City and provincial prosecutors and their assistants, and officials and
prosecutors in the Office of the Ombudsman and special prosecutor;
"(g) Presidents, directors or trustees, or managers of government-owned
or -controlled corporations, state universities or educational institutions or
foundations;
"(2) Members of Congress and officials thereof classified as Grade'27'and up
under the Compensation and Position Classification Act of 1989;

"(3) Members of the judiciary without prejudice to the provisions of the

Constitution;
"(4) Chairmen and members of Constitutional Commissions, without prejudice to
the provisions of the Constitution; and
"(5) All other national and local officials classified as Grade'27'and higher under
the Compensation and Position Classification Act of 1989.
"b. Other offenses orfelonies whether simple or complexed with other crimes committed
by the public officials and employees mentioned in subsection a of this section in relation
to their office.
"c. Civil and criminal cases filed pursuant to and in connection with Executive Order Nos.
1, 2, 14 and 14-A, issued in 1986.
"In cases where none of the accused are occupying positions corresponding to salary
grade '27' or higher, as prescribed in the said Republic Act No. 6758, or military or PNP
officers mentioned above, exclusive original jurisdiction thereof shall be vested in the
proper regional trial court, metropolitan trial court, municipal trial court and municipal
circuit trial court ' as the case may be, pursuant to their respective jurisdiction as
provided in Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, as amended.
"The Sandiganbayan shall exercise exclusive appellate jurisdiction over final judgments,
resolutions or orders or regional trial courts whether in the exercise of their own original
jurisdiction orof their appellate jurisdiction as herein provided.
"The Sandiganbayan shall have exclusive original jurisdiction over petitions for the
issuance of the writs of mandamus, prohibition, certiorari, habeas corpus, injunctions,
and other ancillary writs and processes in aid of its appellate jurisdiction and over
petitions of similar nature, including quo warranto, arising or that may arise in cases filed
or which may be filed under Executive Order Nos. 1,2,14 and 14-A, issued in 1986:
Provided, That the jurisdiction over these petitions shall not be exclusive of the Supreme
Court.
The procedure prescribed in Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, as well as the implementing
rules that the Supreme Court has promulgated and may hereafter promulgate, relative to
appeals/petitions for review to the Court of Appeals, shall apply to appeals and petitions
for review filed with the Sandiganbayan. In all cases elevated to the Sandiganbayan and
from the Sandiganbayan to the Supreme Court, the Office of the Ombudsman, through
its special prosecutor, shall represent the People of the Philippines, except in cases filed
pursuant to Executive Order Nos. 1, 2, 14 and 14-A, issued in 1986.
"In case private individuals are charged as co-principals, accomplices or accessories
with the public officers or employees, including those employed in govemment-owned or
controlled corporations, they shall be tried jointly with said public officers and employees
in the proper courts which shall exercise exclusive jurisdiction over them.
"Any provisions of law or Rules of Court to the contrary notwithstanding, the criminal
action and the corresponding civil action for the recovery of civil liability shall at all times
be simultaneously instituted with, and jointly determined in, the same proceeding by the
Sandiganbayan or the appropriate courts, the filing of the criminal action being deemed
to necessarily carry with it the filing of the civil action, and no right to reserve the filing of
such civil action separately from the criminal action shall be recognized: Provided,
however, That where the civil action had therefore been filed separately but judgment

therein has not yet been rendered, and the criminal case is hereafter filed with the
Sandiganbayan or the appropriate court, said civil action shall be transferred to the
Sandiganbayan or the appropriate court, as the case may be, for consolidation and joint
determination with the criminal action, otherwise the separate civil action shall be
deemed abandoned."
Section 5. Section 7 of the same decree is hereby further amended to read as follows:
'SECTION 7. Form, Finality and Enforcement of Decisions. - All decisions and final
orders determining the merits of a case or finally disposing of the action or proceedings
of the Sandiganbayan shall contain complete findings of the facts and the law on which
they are based, on all issues properly raised before it and necessary in deciding the
case.
"A petition for reconsideration of any final order or decision may be filed within fifteen
(15) days from promulgation or notice of the final order on judgment, and such motion for
reconsideration shall be decided within thirty (30) days from submission thereon.
"Decisions and final orders of the Sandiganbyan shall be appealable to the Supreme
Court by petition for review on certiorari raising pure questions of law in accordance with
Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. Whenever, in any case decided by the Sandiganbayan,
the penalty of reclusion perpetua, life imprisonment or death is imposed, the decision
shall be appealable to the Supreme Court in the manner prescribed in the Rules of
Court.
"Judgments and orders of the Sandiganbayan shall be executed and enforced in the
manner provided by law.
"Decisions and final orders of other courts in cases cognizable by said courts under this
decree as well as those rendered by them in the exercise of their appellate jurisdiction
shall be appealable to, or be reviewable by, the Sandiganbayan in the manner provided
by Rule 122 of the Rules of the Court.
"In case, however, the imposed penalty by the Sandiganbayan or the regional trial court
in the proper exercise of their respective jurisdiction is death, review by the Supreme
Court shall be automatic, whether or not accused files an appeal."

JURISDICTION/CASES COGNIZABLE by Municipal Trial Court, Municipal Circuit Trial

Court, and Metropolitan Trial Court

Republic Act No. 7691

March 25, 1994

AN ACT EXPANDING THE JURISDICTION OF THE METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURTS,

MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURTS, AND MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURTS, AMENDING FOR
THE PURPOSE BATAS PAMBANSA, BLG. 129, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE "JUDICIARY
REORGANIZATION ACT OF 1980"
Section 2. Section 32 of the same law is hereby amended to read as follows:
"Sec. 32. Jurisdiction of Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal
Circuit Trial Courts in Criminal Cases. Except in cases falling within the exclusive
original jurisdiction of Regional Trial Courts and of the Sandiganbayan, the Metropolitan
Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts shall exercise:

"(1) Exclusive original jurisdiction over all violations of city or municipal

ordinances committed within their respective territorial jurisdiction; and
"(2) Exclusive original jurisdiction over all offenses punishable with imprisonment
not exceeding six (6) years irrespective of the amount of fine, and regardless of
other imposable accessory or other penalties, including the civil liability arising
from such offenses or predicated thereon, irrespective of kind, nature, value or
amount thereof: Provided, however, That in offenses involving damage to
property through criminal negligence, they shall have exclusive original
jurisdiction thereof."
Section 3. Section 33 of the same law is hereby amended to read as follows:
"Sec. 33. Jurisdiction of Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal
Circuit Trial Courts in Civil Cases. Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and
Municipal Circuit Trial Courts shall exercise:
"(1) Exclusive original jurisdiction over civil actions and probate proceedings,
testate and intestate, including the grant of provisional remedies in proper cases,
where the value of the personal property, estate, or amount of the demand does
not exceed One hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00) or, in Metro Manila
where such personal property, estate, or amount of the demand does not exceed
Two hundred thousand pesos (P200,000.00), exclusive of interest, damages of
whatever kind, attorney's fees, litigation expenses, and costs, the amount of
which must be specifically alleged: Provided, That interest, damages of whatever
kind, attorney's fees, litigation expenses, and costs shall be included in the
determination of the filing fees: Provided, further, That where there are several
claims or causes of actions between the same or different parties, embodied in
the same complaint, the amount of the demand shall be the totality of the claims
in all the causes of action, irrespective of whether the causes of action arose out
of the same or different transactions;
"(2) Exclusive original jurisdiction over cases of forcible entry and unlawful
detainer: Provided, That when, in such cases, the defendant raises the questions
of ownership in his pleadings and the question of possession cannot be resolved
without deciding the issue of ownership, the issue of ownership shall be resolved
only to determine the issue of possession; and
"(3) Exclusive original jurisdiction in all civil actions which involve title to, or
possession of, real property, or any interest therein where the assessed value of
the property or interest therein does not exceed Twenty thousand pesos
(P20,000.00) or, in civil actions in Metro Manila, where such assessed value
does not exceed Fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00) exclusive of interest,
damages of whatever kind, attorney's fees, litigation expenses and costs:
Provided, That in cases of land not declared for taxation purposes, the value of
such property shall be determined by the assessed value of the adjacent lots."
Section 4. Section 34 of the same law is hereby amended to read as follows:
"Sec. 34. Delegated Jurisdiction in Cadastral and Land Registration Cases.
Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts may
be assigned by the Supreme Court to hear and determine cadastral or land registration
cases covering lots where there is no controversy or opposition, or contested lots where
the value of which does not exceed One hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00), such
value to be ascertained by the affidavit of the claimant or by agreement of the respective
claimants if there are more than one, or from the corresponding tax declaration of the
real property. Their decisions in these cases shall be appealable in the same manner as
decisions of the Regional Trial Courts."
Section 5. After five (5) years from the effectivity of this Act, the jurisdictional amounts
mentioned in Sec. 19(3), (4), and (8); and Sec. 33(1) of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 as amended

by this Act, shall be adjusted to Two hundred thousand pesos (P200,000.00). Five (5) years
thereafter, such jurisdictional amounts shall be adjusted further to Three hundred thousand
pesos (P300,000.00): Provided, however, That in the case of Metro Manila, the abovementioned
jurisdictional amounts shall be adjusted after five (5) years from the effectivity of this Act to Four
hundred thousand pesos (P400,000.00).
Section 6. All laws, decrees, and orders inconsistent with the provisions of this Act shall be
considered amended or modified accordingly.
Section 7. The provisions of this Act shall apply to all civil cases that have not yet reached the
pre-trial stage. However, by agreement of all the parties, civil cases cognizable by municipal and
metropolitan courts by the provisions of this Act may be transferred from the Regional Trial
Courts to the latter. The executive judge of the appropriate Regional Trial Courts shall define the
administrative procedure of transferring the cases affected by the redefinition of jurisdiction to
the Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts.

JURISDICTION/CASES COGNIZABLE BY REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

Republic Act No. 7691

March 25, 1994
"JUDICIARY REORGANIZATION ACT OF 1980"
Section 1. Section 19 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, otherwise known as the "Judiciary
Reorganization Act of 1980", is hereby amended to read as follows:
"Sec. 19. Jurisdiction in civil cases. Regional Trial Courts shall exercise exclusive
original jurisdiction.
"(1) In all civil actions in which the subject of the litigation is incapable of
pecuniary estimation;
"(2) In all civil actions which involve the title to, or possession of, real property, or
any interest therein, where the assessed value of the property involved exceeds
Twenty thousand pesos (P20,000,00) or, for civil actions in Metro Manila, where
such value exceeds Fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00) except actions for forcible
entry into and unlawful detainer of lands or buildings, original jurisdiction over
which is conferred upon the Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and
Municipal Circuit Trial Courts;
"(3) In all actions in admiralty and maritime jurisdiction where the demand or
claim exceeds One hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00) or, in Metro Manila,
where such demand or claim exceeds Two hundred thousand pesos
(P200,000.00);
"(4) In all matters of probate, both testate and intestate, where the gross value of
the estate exceeds One hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00) or, in probate
matters in Metro Manila, where such gross value exceeds Two Hundred
thousand pesos (P200,000.00);
"(5) In all actions involving the contract of marriage and marital relations;
"(6) In all cases not within the exclusive jurisdiction of any court, tribunal, person
or body exercising jurisdiction of any court, tribunal, person or body exercising
judicial or quasi-judicial functions;
"(7) In all civil actions and special proceedings falling within the exclusive original
jurisdiction of a Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court and of the Court of
Agrarian Relations as now provided by law; and

"(8) In all other cases in which the demand, exclusive of interest, damages of
whatever kind, attorney's fees, litigation expenses, and costs or the value of the
property in controversy exceeds One hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00) or,
in such other cases in Metro Manila, where the demand exclusive of the
abovementioned items exceeds Two Hundred thousand pesos (P200,000.00)."
SUMMARY PROCEDURE IN CRIMINAL CASES
1. The Metropolitan Trial Courts, the Municipal Trial Courts in Cities, the Municipal Trial Courts,
and the Municipal Circuit Trial Courts shall have jurisdiction over cases falling under summary
procedure committed within their jurisdiction (Sec. 1, The 1991 Rule on Summary Procedure);
2. The following cases are subject to summary procedure:
(a) Violations of traffic laws, rules and regulations;
(b) Violations of the rental law;
(c) Violations of municipal or city ordinances;
(d) All other criminal cases where the penalty prescribed by law for the offense charged
is imprisonment not exceeding six months, or a fine not exceeding (P1,000.00), or both,
irrespective of other imposable penalties, accessory or otherwise, or of the civil liability
arising therefrom: Provided, however, that in offenses involving damage to property
through criminal negligence, this Rule shall govern where the imposable fine does not
exceed ten thousand pesos (P10,000.00);
(e) Offenses involving damage to property through criminal negligence where the
imposable fine does not exceed ten thousand pesos (P10,000.00) (Sec. 1[B], The 1991
Rule on Summary Procedure);
3. The filing of criminal cases falling within the scope of this Rule shall be either by complaint or
by information: Provided, however, that in Metropolitan Manila and in Chartered Cities. such
cases shall be commenced only by information, except when the offense cannot be prosecuted
de oficio. (Sec. 11, The 1991 Rule on Summary Procedure)
4. Should the court, upon a consideration of the complaint or information and the affidavits
submitted by both parties, find no cause or ground to hold the accused for trial, it shall order the
dismissal of the case; otherwise, the court shall set the case for arraignment and trial. (Sec. 13,
The 1991 Rule on Summary Procedure)
5. Before conducting the trial, the court shall call the parties to a preliminary conference during
which a stipulation of facts may be entered into, or the propriety of allowing the accused to enter
a plea of guilty to a lesser offense may be considered, or such other matters may be taken up to
clarify the issues and to ensure a speedy disposition of the case. However, no admission by the
accused shall be used against him unless reduced to writing and signed by the accused and his
counsel. A refusal or failure to stipulate shall not prejudice the accused. (Sec. 14, The 1991
Rule on Summary Procedure)
6. At the trial, the affidavits submitted by the parties shall constitute the direct testimonies of the
witnesses who executed the same. Witnesses who testified may be subjected to crossexamination, redirect or re-cross examination. Should the affiant fail to testify, his affidavit shall
not be considered as competent evidence for the party presenting the affidavit, but the adverse
party may utilize the same for any admissible purpose.
Except in rebuttal or sur-rebuttal, no witness shall be allowed to testify unless his affidavit was
previously submitted to the court in accordance with Section 12 hereof.
However, should a party desire to present additional affidavits or counter-affidavits as part of his
direct evidence, he shall so manifest during the preliminary conference, stating the purpose
thereof. If allowed by the court, the additional affidavits of the prosecution or the counteraffidavits of the defense shall be submitted to the court and served on the adverse party not
later than three (3) days after the termination of the preliminary conference. If the additional

affidavits are presented by the prosecution, the accused may file his counter-affidavits and
serve the same on the prosecution within three (3) days from such service. (Sec. 15, The 1991
Rule on Summary Procedure)
7. The court shall not order the arrest of the accused except for failure to appear whenever
required. Release of the person arrested shall either be on bail or on recognizance by a
responsible citizen acceptable to the court. (Sec. 16, The 1991 Rule on Summary Procedure)
8. Where a trial has been conducted, the court shall promulgate the judgment not later than
thirty (30) days after the termination of trial. (Sec. 17, The 1991 Rule on Summary Procedure)