DOJ OPINION NO. 090, s.

1991
May 23, 1991
Mr. Alejandro T. Laganson, Sr.
Office of the Purok Chairman
Purok 30, Teachers' Village
Calinan, Davao City
Sir :
This refers to your request for advice, as a member of the Lupong Tagapayapa,
concerning the views expressed by the Katarungang Pambarangay trainors relative
to the implementation of P.D. No. 1508, the "Katarungang Pambarangay Law".
Particularly, these views are:
I.
The Lupon can entertain all civil cases at the barangay level, provided that
the settlement is not recorded in the barangay monthly report.
II.
The barangay chairman or the Pangkat ng Tagapagkasundo can settle all
disputes, including offenses punishable by imprisonment exceeding 30 days or a
fine exceeding P200.00, except rape or murder as long as the parties agree to a
settlement. Cdpr
III.
The Lupon members may mediate disputes on behalf of the barangay
chairman provided that it is the latter who signs the attestation to the settlement.
Our comments/observations on the above-stated interpretations of P.D. 1508 are
set forth hereunder.

I
Where the barangay chairman and the Pangkat amicably settle a dispute
particularly a civil case which does not fall within the authority of the Lupon,
they perform a service which is not subject to the provisions of the
Katarungang Pambarangay Law. One example of such civil case, is a case
involving parties residing in different cities or municipalities. The submission
by the parties to the barangay settlement procedures and the performance
of conciliation functions by the barangay officials are purely voluntary.
Accordingly, the sanctions to compel compliance with the provisions of P.D.
No. 1508 specifically the provision requiring the personal appearance of the
parties, are inapplicable to such voluntary proceedings.

Furthermore, where a case falling outside the authority of Lupon is amicably

settled, the agreement arrived at is an ordinary contract which will not
acquire the force and effect of a final judgment of the court. Thus, such
contract cannot be enforced through execution by the local city or municipal
court under Section 12, P.D. No. 1508. (Opinion No. 62, Secretary of Justice,
s. 1982)
II
Regarding the settlement of grave offenses, or offenses punishable by
imprisonment of more than 30 days and/or fine of more than P200.00, this
Department has and occasion to state the rationale behind the provision of
P.D. No. 1508 excluding from its ambit the aforesaid crimes, as follows:
"It is worthwhile to note, however, that the amicable settlement of disputes
provided in P.D. No. 1508 is in the nature of a compromise. As a general
rule, the Civil Code provides that if a crime has been committed, there may
be a compromise upon the civil liability arising from the offense; but such
compromise shall not extinguish the public action for the imposition of the
legal penalty. (Article 2034) The reason for this rule is that with the
exception of crimes of private character, the repression and punishment of
public offenses is matter of interest to society and is one of public policy.
(U.S. vs. Mendozona, 2 Phil. 353, 376 [1903]; U.S. vs. Leano, 6 Phil. 368,
372 [1906]). This being so, P.D. No. 1508 intended that only petty crime
which do not pose a serious danger to the society shall be amicably settled
before the Lupon. In the balancing of public and societal interest it was
deemed more consistent with the promotion of the general welfare to have
only petty crimes compromised before the Lupon instead of being litigated
before the courts. (Ops. No. 91, s. 1981 & No. 55, s. 1982, Ministry of
Justice)"
It was thus ruled that the settlement of a serious or grave offense will not
bind the State nor the parties thereto (Ibid.). This means that the amicable
settlement of a grave offense will not serve as a legal bar to the prosecution
of the offender. Admittedly, though, the government's inability to prosecute
may be adversely affected or hampered by the lack of cooperation from the
offended party who may have compromised the case. Prcd

Incidentally, private crimes such as seduction, abduction, rape or acts of

lasciviousness, which are prosecuted only upon complaint filed by the
offended party, or her parents, grandparents, or guardian, although serious
offenses can be pardoned by the above-named persons. Likewise, the
criminal liability arising therefrom is extinguished by the marriage of the
offender with the offended party. (Art. 344, Revised Penal Code)
III
The mediation proceedings conducted by the Lupon members on behalf of
the barangay captain is an unofficial arrangement, which may have a
practical value, as long as the parties voluntarily submit thereto.
The Lupon members a without legal authority to mediate, Section 4(b) of
P.D. No. 1508 having vested the same upon the barangay chairman. Hence,
they cannot enforce the appearance of the parties before them for
mediation, through the sanctions provided by P.D. No. 1508. cdphil
The usefulness of the arrangement depends upon the willingness of the
parties to submit to mediation before the Lupon members instead of the
barangay chairman and subsequently to personally affirm before the latter
the amicable settlement reached and to sign in his presence the said
settlement. In this case, the settlement is deemed to have been made
before the barangay chairman who shall attest to the execution of the
amicable settlement.
Please be guided accordingly.
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) FRANKLIN M. DRILON
Secretary