 Despite the use of the term “justice”, there is no such thing as a barangay court.

The
barangay officials who compose the Lupong Tagapamayapa or the Pangkat ng
Tagapagsundo are not judges.

The Lupon or Pangkat acts like a court when parties in dispute agree to arbitration

The instances of such acts are said to be when the Lupon or Pangkat is: 1. weighing evidence, 2.
hearing testimonies, 3. deciding on the merits, etc.

 The objectives of the the Barangay Conciliation are among others:

1. The barangay system of dispute resolution is an institution established for the purpose
of shifting or segregating cases which can be peaceably or amicably settled between the
parties and those which are truly irreconcilable as to require formal adjudication before
the courts or government offices (P.D. 1508)

2. Cases are prevented from reaching the regular courts of justice or government offices
performing adjudicatory functions, the dockets of which are thereby relieved of
congestion of pending cases (DOJ Opinion No. 10, s. 1982)

3. Promotion of the Speedy administration of justice (DOJ Opinion No. 26, s. 1982)

4. Perpetuate tradition and culture within the barangay level, for the purpose of
perpetuating and giving official recognition to our time-honored tradition of resolving
disputes among family and barangay members from the court system which performs
the same functions of resolving disputes or controversies but through formal and
technical rules of procedure (DOJ Opinion No. 87, s. 1981)

5. As an alternative to Litigation, the primary purpose Chapter 7, Title 1, Book 3 of the LGC
is to provide the conciliation mechanism as an alternative to litigation in dispute
settlement, to members of the responding barangay who are actually residing therein
(Bejer vs. CA 169 SCRA 566, 572 January 27, 1989)

6. To have Peaceful and Friendly Settlement, the Katarungang Pambarangay Law is to

relieve trial courts of cases among neighbors that hopefully can be settled through the
mediation of their peers in peaceful and friendly confrontations (Ramos vs. CA 174 SCRA
690, 695 June 30, 1989)

7. By compelling the disputants to settle their differences through the intervention of the
barangay leader and other respected members of the barangay, the animosity
generated by protracted court litigations between members of the same political unit, a
disrupted factor toward unity and cooperation is avoided (Morata vs. Go 125 SCRA 444,
449 October 28, 1983)
 8. Interest of public Peace and Order. While it is conceded that the State has the sovereign
right to prosecute criminal offenses and that the fiscal has the full control in public
prosecution, Katarungan Pambarangay stays the prosecuting arm of the government in
cases of light offences and allows the parties to settle their differences in the larger and
greater interest of public peace and order (People vs. Caruncho 127 SCRA 16, 31 Jan 23,
1984)

 What are the procedure for amicable settlement

1. Mediation by the lupon chairman.

Upon receipt of the compliant, the lupon chairman shall within, the next working day,
summon the respondent(s) with notice to the complainant(s) for them and their witnesses to
appear before him for a mediation effort within fifteen (15) days from the first meeting of the
parties before him, he shall forthwith set a date for the constitution of the pangkat

2. Suspension of Prescriptive period.

While the dispute is under mediation, conciliation, or arbitration, the prescriptive period
for offences and cause of action under existing laws shall be interrupted upon filing of the
complaint with the punong barangay. The prescriptive period shall resume upon receipt by the
complainant of the complaint or the certificate of repudiation or the certification to file action
issued by the lupon or pangkat secretary. Provided that such interruption shall not exceed sixty
(60) days from the filing of the complaint with the punong barangay.

3. Issuance of summons; hearings.

The pangkat shall convene not later than three (3) days from its constitution, on the day
and hour set by the lupon chairman, to hear both parties and their witnesses, simplify issues,
and explore all possibilities for amicable settlement. For this purpose the pangkat may issue
summons for the personal appearance of parties and witnesses before it.

4. Disqualification of member

In the event that a party move to disqualify any member of the pangkat by reason of
relationship, bias, interest, or any other similar grounds discovered after the constitution of the
pangkat, the matter shall be resolve by the affirmative vote of the majority of the pangkat
whose decision shall be final.

5. To arrive at a settlement.

The Pangkat shall arrive at a settlement or a dispute resolution of the dispute within
fifteen (15) days from the day it convenes and this period shall at the discretion of the Pangkat,
be extendible for another period which shall not exceed fifteen (15) days, except in clearly
meritorious cases (Sec. 410)

 Functions of Lupon

1. The function of the lupon tagapamayapa is primarily conciliatory not adjudicative (DOJ
Opinion No. 64, s. 1982)

2. (a.) Exercise administrative supervision over the conciliation panels; (b.) meet
regularly once a month to provide a forum for matters relevant to the amicable
settlement of disputes, and to enable various conciliation panel members to share
with one another their observations and experiences in effecting speedy resolution
disputes; and (c.) Exercise such other powers and perform such other duties and
functions as may be prescribed by law or ordinance.

 Scope of the lupon powers

The lupon Tagapamayapa is an administrative body. It has only such powers and
functions as are conferred on it expressly or by necessary implication by the law that created it
(DOJ Opinion No. 100, s. 1979 and No. 29, s. 1984)

 When can there be improper substitution

Without conducting a personal confrontation of the parties before him for mediation,
the punong barangay instead, referred the case to a lawyer who acted thereon purportedly as a
“pangkat chairman.” Under the circumstances the assumption by the said lawyer of the
position of chairman of the pangkat ng tagapagsundo was devoid of legal basis because of the
non-compliance with the statutory requirement of personal confrontation of the parties before
the punong barangay, as well as the law prescribing for the method and manner in selecting the
pangkat chairman.

Moreover, it does not appear that said lawyer is a senior member of the barangay
council who can substitute for the punong barangay as lupon chairman. Only members of the
sangguniang barangay, in the order of their seniority, can succeed to or substitute for, the
punong barangay as lupon chairman (DOJ Opinion No. 341, s. 1984)

 Lupon different from the barangay council

The barangay council is the barangay law—making body, created under the Revised
Barrio Charter, R.A. 3590, as amended. The lupon tagapamayapa id the council created und P.D.
1508. The lupon is a conciliation body separate and distinct from the barangay council or
sanggunian (DOJ Opinion No. 43, s. 1982)