1997 Rules on Civil Procedure Katarungang Pambarangay

2001 Edition < DRAFT COPY; Please check for errors > vis a vis Rule 18

KATARUNGANG PAMBARANGAY

For now, we will leave the rules on civil procedure. We will go to another law which is also
connected with the study on civil procedure. This is the Barangay Conciliation Law. It is appropriate
to discuss what the law is all about because under Rule 18 on pre-trial, you will notice it has
emphasized that the primary purpose of a pre-trial is the possibility of amicable settlement. That is
usually encouraged. No case may reach the trial stage without passing through the Pre-trial Rule. We
have to exhaust all avenues and settlement.

There is a law known as the BARANGAY CONCILIATION LAW which mandate that before an
action can be filed by an individual complainant against another individual defendant, both of them
are residing in the same city or municipality, there should be a prior attempt to conciliate in the
barangay level – under the rules, the barangay of the defendant. And if the action if filed without
observing that procedure, the action is dismissible.

Suppose a case will be filed in court, according to the SC, the plaintiff must allege in a complaint
that before filing the case he exerted or complied with the Baranagay Law. It is a condition precedent.
Normally, after you exhaust in the barangay level but is not successful, the Barangay Chairman will
issue a certification to file an action. That should be stated in the complaint.

According to the SC in the case of VDA. DE BORROMEO vs. PUGOY (126 SCRA 217), the failure of
a complaint to allege compliance with the requirement of the barangay law is fatal. He must make an
allegation that before filing his complaint, he complied with the barangay law. Otherwise, his
complaint will be ordered dismissed.

If the action is filed without observing that procedure, the action is dismissible. But as clarified by
the SC in many cases, among them are EBOL vs. AMIN (125 SCRA 438) and GONZALES vs. CA (151
SCRA 289) the defect is NOT JURISDICTIONAL. You do not say the court has no jurisdiction.

The ground for dismissal is more on PREMATURITY OF THE ACTION. You can cite the new
ground now as “the condition precedent required by law has not been observed.” Actually, it will also
affect the cause of action- Based on decided cases, there must be an allegation in the complaint that
before filing a case, there has been an attempt to undergo a conciliation in the barangay level.

Now, this law used to be the Katarungang Pambarangay Law, PD 1508. However, it was
superseded on January 1, 1992 by RA 7160, otherwise known as the Local Government Code Of 1991
(LGC). The Barangay Conciliation requirement is now embodied in RA 7160. The barangay
requirement is found in Sections 399-422 and also Section 515. It is around 25 sections of the law.

To help you, the SC in 1993 issued Administrative Circular No. 14-93 where the SC tried to
condense the important requirements of the law – who are covered and who are not. It is addressed to
all RTC and MTC judges. Subject: Guidelines on the Katarungang Pambarangay conciliation Procedure
to prevent circumvention on the Revised Katarungang Pambarangay Law.

We will summarize the law and discuss some important features. Under the law, you cannot file a
case against somebody without attempting to settle matters before the barangay level.

SOME IMPORTANT FEATURES OF THE BARANGAY CONCILIATION LAW:

The law applies only when you are suing somebody who resides in the same city or municipality
where you reside. Or in the event of different municipalities, they are adjacent. So when two towns are
near each other, you are suing somebody there, the law will apply. Generally, when you (from Davao
City) sue somebody from General Santos City, the law is inapplicable because it is a different city.

The law will not apply if one of the parties in the dispute is a juridical person – i.e. corporation. It
only applies to suits between natural persons.

Property of LAKAS ATENISTA 14

1997 Rules on Civil Procedure Katarungang Pambarangay
2001 Edition < DRAFT COPY; Please check for errors > vis a vis Rule 18

Under the law, it is where the barangay where the barangay where the defendant resides. Unless,
the dispute arose in a workplace or in school, the venue is the barangay where the workplace or the
school is located.

Q: If I’m from Sasa and you are from Toril, but we are residing in the same city, which barangay is
the proper venue?
A: Under the law, it is the barangay where the defendant resides, unless the dispute arose
in a workplace or in school.

If the dispute refers to REAL property, it is where the property is situated. If the dispute refers to
Real Property (e.g. land), and I’m from Matina, and you are from Sasa, but the case involves a land in
Toril, then the correct venue is the place where the land is situated – i.e. the barangay in Toril.

When you say, both the parties reside in the same city or municipality, what do you mean by
RESIDENCE? The same interpretation as laid down by the SC in

GARCES vs. COURT OF APPEALS

162 SCRA 504

FACTS: Garces lives in Cavite but works in Malate. He rented an apartment in Malate
and stays there on weekends.
HELD: For purposes of the Barangay Law, Garces is a resident of Malate. The word
‘RESIDES’ refers to actual or physical residence, not domicile.

In the case of
BEJER vs. COURT OF APPEALS
169 SCRA 566

FACTS: Andre lives in Laguna but has a house in Manila where his children live.

ISSUE: Is Andre a residence of Manila?

HELD: NO, because Andre is not a registered in the barangay as a voter. Physical
presence alone is not sufficient. So, the SC added another qualification, that residence is
determined by membership in the barangay. Therefore, even if you are in that area but you
are not a member of the barangay, you are not a resident thereof.
This is because “the primary purpose of the law is to provide the conciliation
mechanism, as an alternative to litigations in dispute settlement, to member of the
corresponding barangays who are actually residing therein. Residence alone, without
membership, in said barangays would not be an accurate and reliable criterion, considering
that such residence may be actual but be merely temporary, transient or categorized into
other permutations as in the case of a house guest or a sojourner on a visit of a day or two.”
“On the other hand, mere membership in a barangay, without actual residence therein,
should not suffice since absentee membership would not subserve the avowed purpose of
the law for lack of the common bond and sense of belonging generally fostered in members
of an identified aggroupment.”

Q: Suppose the defendant will not show up everytime he is called.

A: That is now a ground for the barangay captain to issue a certificate to file an action. The
defendant cannot complain later that there is non-compliance of the barangay law. The defendant
cannot use his own default to profit it. That was the ruling in SAN MIGUEL VILLAGE SCHOOL vs.
PUNDOGAR (173 SCRA 704).

Take note that the barangay cannot decide. It can only convince the party to settle. A barangay
court has no power to make decisions. But if you agree to something and in case you failed to comply
with your agreement, that can be enforced by the barangay. But actually, the decision came from you,
and not from the barangay court.
Property of LAKAS ATENISTA 15
1997 Rules on Civil Procedure Katarungang Pambarangay
2001 Edition < DRAFT COPY; Please check for errors > vis a vis Rule 18

There other interesting cases under the Barangay Law. In the 1989 case of

RAMOS vs . COURT OF APPEALS

174 SCRA 690

FACTS: This case originate in barangay Lanang, Davao City. The parties failed to agree
before the barangay captain. He tried to convince them to settle, but they refused to settle.
With that, the barangay captain issued a certificate to file an action. So the case was filed in
the RTC. The defendant questioned the procedure.

HELD: The procedure wrong. The case cannot be filed. Under the Barangay Law which
is now incorporated in 410-d of the Local Government Code, the correct procedure for this
is, if the barangay captain cannot effect settlement, he should throw the case to the Pangkat,
the Lupon. If the barangay captain cannot settle, the next step is the Lupong Tagapamayapa.
So, you cannot immediately issue a certification to file action

BUT the ruling if RAMOS seems to have been CHANGED already in the light of the new Local
Government Code. In the 1995 case of

DIU vs. COURT OF APPEALS

251 SCRA 472 [1995]

FACTS: What happened here is exactly similar to what happened to the case of RAMOS.
When the barangay captain could not effect a settlement, he issued certificate to file action.
That was questioned. It was not referred to the Lupon. Therefore, it was premature, citing
Section 410-d of the LGC.

HELD: The SC cited a new section in the LGC which is Section 412 which seems to give
the barangay captain the authority to issue a certificate without necessarily referring
anymore to the Lupon.
“While no pangkat was constituted, it is not denied that the parties met at the office of
the barangay chairman for possible settlement. The efforts of the barangay chairman,
however, proved futile as no agreement was reached. Although no pangkat was formed, we
believe that there was substantial compliance with the law. It is noteworthy that under
Section 412 of the Local Government Code, the confrontation before the lupon chairman OR
the pangkat is sufficient compliance with the pre-condition for filing the case in court.”
“This is true notwithstanding the mandate of Section 410(b) of the same law that the
barangay chairman shall constitute a pangkat if he fails in his mediation efforts. Section
410(b) should be construed together with Section 412. On this score, it is significant that the
barangay chairman or punong barangay is himself the chairman of the lupon under the
Local Government Code.”

Anyway, if be look to the pangkat under the LGC, the chairman of the lupon is also the barangay
captain. So, either one or the other will do. So, the case of DIU has effectively set aside the ruling in
RAMOS.

CANDIDO vs. MACAPAGAL

221 SCRA 328 [1993]

FACTS: Here, plaintiff Eltor files a case against defendants Jenny, Gemma, and Jayce.
Eltor and Jenny reside in Davao City. So they (Eltor and Jenny) are covered by the law. But
Gemma and Jayce reside in General City. So there is no problem with Gemma and Jayce
because there is no need to effect conciliation. But how about Jenny? Should the case be
dismissed against Jenny if there was no prior barangay conciliation between Jenny and
Eltor?

Property of LAKAS ATENISTA 16

1997 Rules on Civil Procedure Katarungang Pambarangay
2001 Edition < DRAFT COPY; Please check for errors > vis a vis Rule 18

HELD: NO. The fact that Eltor and Jenny reside in the same municipality does not justify
compulsory conciliation WHERE the other defendants reside in different municipalities or
cities.

So, it would seem na pag nahuluan na ng iba, you are not also covered anymore. That seems to be
the implication. That seems to jive with another ruling of the SC on the issue of “members of the same
family” because under the law, if the plaintiff and defendant are members of the same family, they
cannot also file a case against each other without conciliation. But if there is a stranger included, the
requirement will not apply.

July 15, 1993

ADMINISTRATIVE CIRCULAR NO. 14-93

Subject : Guidelines on the Katarungang Pambarangay conciliation procedure

to prevent circumvention of the Revised Katarungang Pambarangay
Law (Sections 399-422, chapter VII, Title I, Book III, R.A. 7160,
otherwise known as the Local Government Code of 1991).

To : All Regional Trial Courts, Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial

Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts

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 Lupon Tagapamayapa but also in the procedure to be observed in
the settlement of disputes within the authority of the Lupon. cd i
In order that the laudable purpose of the law may not 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);
NOTE: Only natural persons can undergo barangay conciliation.

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 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:
NOTE: “Urgently.” A good example in civil action is where the action is
coupled with a provisional remedy such as preliminary injunction, attachment,
replevin or support. Or, actions which may be barred by the statute of
limitations.

Property of LAKAS ATENISTA 17

1997 Rules on Civil Procedure Katarungang Pambarangay
2001 Edition < DRAFT COPY; Please check for errors > vis a vis Rule 18

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 his liberty or one 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
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);
NOTE: In the case of Montoya vs. Escayo (171 SCRA 442), the
conciliation there is in the Department of Labor.

12. Actions to annul judgment upon a compromise, which may be filed

directly in court (See Sanchez vs. Tupaz, 158 SCRA 459).

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: aisa dc

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 or 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 the 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 Rule Katarungang Pambarangay Lay; 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 of 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.

III. All complaints and/or informations filed or raffled to your sala/branch

of the Regional Trial Court, Metropolitan Trial Court or Municipal Trial Court
shall be carefully read and scrutinized to determine if there has been
compliance with prior Barangay conciliation procedure under the Revised
Property of LAKAS ATENISTA 18
1997 Rules on Civil Procedure Katarungang Pambarangay
2001 Edition < DRAFT COPY; Please check for errors > vis a vis Rule 18

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)

1.) 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
2.) 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 propio 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 proprio refer the case to the Lupon concerned
for amicable settlement.

Strict observance of these guidelines is enjoined. This Administrative

Circular shall be effective immediately.

Manila, Philippines. July 15, 1993.

(Sgd.) ANDRES R. NARVASA

Chief Justice


published by

LAKAS ATENISTA 1997 – 1998: FOURTH YEAR: Anna Vanessa Angeles • Glenda Buhion • Joseph
Martin Castillo • Aaron Philip Cruz • Pearly Joan Jayagan • Anderson Lo •
Yogie Martirizar • Frecelyn Mejia • Dorothy Montejo • Rowena Panales • Regina Sison •
Ruby Teleron • Marilou Timbol • Maceste Uy • Perla Vicencio • Liberty Wong • Jude Zamora •
Special Thanks to: Marissa Corrales and July Romena

SECOND YEAR: Jonalyn Adiong • Emily Aliño • Karen Allones • Joseph Apao •
Melody Penelope Batu • Gemma Betonio • Rocky Cabarroguis • Charina Cabrera •
Marlon Cascuejo • Mike Castaños • Karen de Leon • Cherry Frondozo • Jude Fuentes • Maila Ilao
• Ilai Llena • Rocky Malaki • Jenny Namoc • Ines Papaya • Jennifer Ramos • Paisal Tanjili

LAKAS ATENISTA 2001–2002: REVISION COMMITTEE: Melissa Suarez • Jessamyn Agustin •

Judee Uy • Janice Joanne Torres • Genie Salvania • Pches Fernandez • Riezl Locsin •
Kenneth Lim • Charles Concon • Roy Acelar • Francis Ampig • Karen Cacabelos •
Maying Dadula • Hannah Examen • Thea Guadalope • Myra Montecalvo • Paul Ongkingco •
Michael Pito • Rod Quiachon • Maya Quitain • Rina Sacdalan • Lyle Santos • Joshua Tan •
Thaddeus Tuburan • John Vera Cruz • Mortmort

Property of LAKAS ATENISTA 19