You are on page 1of 8

TRINIDAD, REY-AN N.

1550008

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1992 and which repealed P. D. 1508, introduced substantial changes not only in the authority granted to the Lupong Tagapamayapa but also in the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disputes are subject to Barangay conciliation pursuant to the Revised Katarungang Pambarangay Law [formerly P. D. 1508, repealed and now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 pre-condition 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 cross-examination, 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 counter-affidavits 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)