RULE ON SMALL CLAIMS
Scope and Applicability of Rules for Small Claims Cases
The Rules of Procedure for Small Claims Cases shall govern
the procedure in the Metropolitan Trial Courts (MeTCs),
Municipal Trial Courts in Cities (MTCCs), Municipal Trial
Courts (MTCs), and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts (MCTCs)
involving all actions that are purely civil in nature where the
claim or relief prayed for by the plaintiff is solely for
payment or reimbursement of sum of money. The claims
or demands may be:
1. For money owed under a contract of lease, loan, services,
sale, or mortgage;
2. For liquidated damages arising from contracts;
3. Enforcement of a barangay amicable settlement; or
4. Arbitration award involving a money claim covered by
this Rule pursuant to the Local Government Code. (Sec. 5,
Revised Rules of Procedure for Small Claims Cases, as
amended)
These Rules shall govern the procedure in actions before
the MTCs for payment of money where the value of claim
does not exceed the jurisdictional amount of P400,000.00
for the MeTCs and P300,000.00 for the MTCCs, MTCs, and
MCTCs, exclusive of interest and cost. (Sec. 2, Revised
Rules of Procedure for Small Claims Cases, as amended)
Venue
For small claims cases, the regular rules of venue shall
apply, at the election of the plaintiff, in the MeTC, MTCC,
MTC, and MCTC:
1. Where the plaintiff resides;
2. Where the defendant resides; or
3. Where he may be found, in the case of a non-resident
defendant.
However, if the plaintiff is engaged in the business of
lending, banking and similar activities, in the city where the
defendant resides, if the plaintiff has a branch in that city.
(Sec. 7, Revised Rules of Procedure for Small Claims Cases,
as amended)
KATARUNGANG PAMBARANGAY
(A.C. No. 14-93)
General Rule:
ALL disputes between individuals/natural persons are
subject to barangay conciliation pursuant to the Revised
Katarungang Pambarangay Law and prior recourse thereto
is a pre-condition before filing a complaint in court or any
government offices is allowed.
11. Labor disputes or controversies arising from employer-
employee relations (Montoya v. Escayo, et al., G.R. No. 82211-12,
1989); (Art. 226, Labor Code)
There must have been confrontation between the parties
before the lupon chairman or pangkat and a showing that
there was no settlement reached or that it was repudiated
by the parties before a complaint, petition, action or
proceeding may be filed or instituted in court or in a
government office for adjudication.
Exceptions:
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
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 [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;
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 (Secs. 46 & 47, R. A. 6657);
12. Actions to annul judgment upon a compromise that may be
filed directly in court (Sanchez v. Tupaz, G.R. No. 76690, 1988)
A case filed in court without compliance with prior barangay
conciliation, which is a pre-condition for formal adjudication, may
be dismissed upon motion of defendant/s on the ground of failure
to comply with a condition precedent. The non-referral of a case
for barangay conciliation is not jurisdictional in nature, thus it
necessitates a motion to dismiss before it may be considered by
the Court. (Royales v. Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R. No. L-
65072, Jan. 31, 1984).
A prior recourse to barangay conciliation is a pre-condition before
filing a complaint in court or any government offices. Non-
compliance with the said condition precedent could affect the
sufficiency of the plaintiff’s cause of action and make his complaint
vulnerable to dismissal on ground of lack of cause of action or
prematurity; but the same would not prevent a court of
competent jurisdiction from exercising its power of adjudication
over the case before it, where the defendants failed to object to
such exercise of jurisdiction. (Sps. Santos v. Sps. Lumbao, G.R. No.
169129, 2007)
Interruption of Prescriptive Period:
While the dispute under mediation, conciliation, or arbitration, the
prescriptive periods for offenses and cause of action under existing
laws shall be interrupted upon filing of the complaint with the
Punong Barangay.
Agreement to Arbitrate:
The parties may, at any stage of the proceedings, agree in writing
to have the matter in dispute decided by arbitration by the Lupon
Chairman or Pangkat.
RULE ON SUMMARY PROCEDURE
The rule shall govern the summary procedure in the MeTCs,
MTCCs, MTCs, and MCTCs.
Scope and Applicability of Rules on Summary Procedure for Civil
Cases
1. All cases of forcible entry and unlawful detainer, irrespective of
the amount of damages or unpaid rentals sought to be recovered,
but if attorney’s fees are awarded, the same shall not exceed
P20,000.00; and
2. All other cases, except probate proceedings, where the total
amount of the plaintiff’s claim does not P100,000 or P200,000 in
Metropolitan Manila, exclusive of interests and costs. (Sec. 1(A),
Revised Rule on Summary Procedure, as amended)
In small claims cases, the following amounts are excluded in
determining jurisdictional amount:
1. Interest;
2. Costs.
(Sec. 1(A)(2), Revised Rule on Summary Procedure, as amended)
Scope and Applicability of Rules on Summary Procedure for
Criminal Cases
1. Traffic violations.
2. Rental law violations.
3. Violations of city or municipal ordinances.
4. Violations of B.P. 22 (Bouncing Checks Law).
5. All other cases where penalty does NOT exceed 6 months
and/or fine of P1K, irrespective of other imposable penalties,
accessory or otherwise.
6. In offenses involving damage to property through criminal
negligence, where the imposable fine does not exceed P10K.
(Sec. 1 (B), Revised Rule on Summary Procedure, as amended)
Exception:
The Rule on Summary Proceedings shall not apply to a civil case
where the plaintiff’s cause of action is pleaded in the same
complaint with another cause of action subject to the ordinary
procedure.
Nor is it applicable to a criminal case where the offense charged is
necessarily related to another criminal case subject to the ordinary
procedure.
(Sec. 1, Revised Rule on Summary Procedure, as amended)