Revised Katarungang

Pambarangay
Local Government Code of 1991
• The law on the katarungang pambarangay was
originally governed by PD 1508 enacted on June
11, 1978. The LGC, Book 3 Title 1 Chapter 7
revised the law. As a consequence of this
revision, PD 1508 was expressly repealed
pursuant to Sec 534 (b) of the Code.
• While PD 1508 has been repealed by RA 7160,
the jurisprudence built thereon remains
applicable because its provisions were
substantially reproduced in the Code.
 3 New significant Features
• Compared to PD 1508 (Katarungang Pambarangay Law), the Revised
Katarungang Pambarangay Law under the LGC has at least 3 new
significant features:
• 1. It increased the authority of the lupon in criminal offenses from
those punishable by imprisonment not exceeding 30days or a fine
not exceeding P200 in PD 1508 to those offenses punishable by
imprisonment not exceeding one (1) year or a fine not exceeding
P5000
• It has broadened the jurisdiction of the lupon and if the mediation
and conciliation process at that level would be effectively pursued,
few cases would reach the regular courts, justice would be achieved
at less expense to the litigants, cordial relationships among
protagonists in a small community would be restored, and peace
and order therein enhanced.
• 2. As to venue, it provides that disputes arising at the
workplace where the contending parties are employed or
at the institution where such parties are enrolled for study,
shall be brought in the barangay where such workplace or
institution is located.
• This 2nd feature, covered by par (d), Sec 409, also broadens
the authority of the lupon in the sense that appropriate
civil and criminal cases arising from incidents occurring in
workplaces or institutions of learning shall be brought in
the barangay where such workplace or institution is
located, where the barangay may not be the appropriate
venue in either par (a) or (b) of the said section. The Rule
provides convenience to the parties.
• 3. It provides for the suspension of the prescriptive periods
of offenses during the pendency of the mediation,
conciliation, or arbitration process. This feature is
claimed at maximizing the effectiveness of the mediation,
conciliation or arbitration process. It discourages any
intentional delay of the referral to a date close to the
expiration of the prescriptive period and then invoking the
proximity of such expiration as the reason for immediate
recourse to the courts. It also affords the parties sufficient
time to cool off and face each other with less emotionalism
and more objectivity which are essential ingredients in the
resolution of the dispute. The 60day suspension could spell
the difference between peach and a full-blown, wearisome,
and expensive litigation between the parties.
 Lupong Tagapamayapa
• There is created in each barangay a LT, referred to as LUPON which
is composed of the Punong Barangay as chairman and 10 to 20
members. The lupon shall be constituted every 3 years.
• Any person ACTUALLY RESIDING or WORKING in the barangay, not
otherwise expressly disqualified by law, and possessing integrity,
impartiality, independence of mind, sense of fairness, and
reputation for probity, may be appointed a member of the lupon.
• Before the lupon can function as such, it must first be constituted
by the PB. A notice to constitute the lupon, which shall include the
names of proposed members who have expressed their willingness
to serve, shall be prepared by the PB within the first 15days from
the start of the term of office. Such notice shall be posted in 3
conspicuous places in the barangay continuously for a period of not
less than 3 weeks.
 Sec 388 – Persons in Authority
• For purposes of the Revised Penal Code, the PB,
sangguniang barangay members and members of the
lupong tagapamayapa in each barangay shall be deemed as
persons in authority in their jurisdiction, while other
barangay officials and members who may be designated by
law or ordinance and charged with the maintenance of
public order, protection and security of life and property, or
the maintenance of a desirable and balanced environment,
and any barangay member who comes to the aid of
persons in authority, shall be deemed agents of persons in
authority.
• The Punong Barangay as a person in authority may
arrest and detain persons within legal limits (Milo v Salanga
152 S 113).
 Procedure for creating the lupon
• The PB taking into consideration any opposition to the
proposed appointment or any recommendations for
appointments as may have been made within the period of
posting, shall within 10days thereafter, appoint as members
those whom he determines to be suitable therefor.
Appointments shall be in writing, signed by the PB, and
attested to by the barangay secretary. The list of appointed
members shall be posted in 3 conspicuous places in the
barangay for the entire duration of their term of office. In
barangays where majority of the inhabitants are members
o f indigenous cultural communities, local systems of
settling disputes thru their councils of datus or elders shall
be recognized without prejudice to the applicable
provisions of the Code. (Sec 399)
 Function of the Lupon
• The lupon shall exercise administrative
supervision over the conciliation panels to be
created. It shall meet regularly once a month to
provide a forum for exchange of ideas among its
members and the public on 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 of
disputes. It shall exercise such other powers and
perform such other duties and functions as may
be prescribed by law and ordinance (Sec 402).
• The barangay secretary shall concurrently
serve as the secretary of the lupon. He shall
record the results of mediation proceedings
before the Punong Barangay and shall submit
a report thereon to the proper city or
municipal courts. He shall also receive and
keep the records of proceedings submitted to
him by the various conciliation panels. (Sec
403)
 Pangkat ng Tagapagkasundo
• For each dispute brought before the lupon, there shall be
constituted a conciliation panel to be known as the P ng T, refereed
to as the “Pangkat” consisting of 3 members who shall be chosen
by the parties to the dispute from the list of members of the lupon.
Should the parties fail to agree on the pangkat membership, the
same shall be determined by lots drawn by the lupon chairman. The
3 members constituting the pangkat shall elect from among
themselves the chairman and the secretary. The secretary shall
prepare the minutes of the proceedings and submit a copy duly
attested to by the chairman to the lupon secretary and to the
proper city/municipal court. He shall issue and cause to be served
notices to the parties concerned. The lupon secretary shall issue
certified true copies of any public record in his custody that is not
be law otherwise confidential (sec 404).
 When referral to Pangkat not
necessary
• Referral to the Pangkat is MANDATORY only to those
cases where both parties have submitted themselves
to the lupon. Where one party fails to appear for no
justifiable reason, the Punong Barangay may issue the
certification to file action (Alinsugay v Cagampang 143
S 146). Convening the Pangkat as a necessary second
step will serve no useful purpose. It will accomplish
nothing in view of a party’s unwillingness, as reflected
in his unjustified absence to settle the dispute outside
the regular courts. In that case, the only feasible
alternative for the lupon is to issue the certification
allowing complainant to bring the controversy to court.
 Sec 408 - Subject Matter for amicable
settlement
• The lupon of each barangay shall have authority to
bring together the parties ACTUALLY RESIDING in the
same city or municipality for amicable settlement of
ALL disputes EXCEPT:
• 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. offenses punishable by imprisonment exceeding
one (1) year or a fine exceeding P5,000
• 4. offenses where there is no private offended party;
• 5. where the dispute involves real properties
located in different cities or municipalities unless
the parties thereto agree to submit their
differences to amicable settlement by an
appropriate lupon;
• 6. 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;
• 7. such other classes of disputes which the President may
determine in the interest of justice or upon the
recommendation of the Secretary of Justice. The court in
which non-criminal cases not falling within the authority of
the lupon under the Code are filed, may at any time before
trial, motu proprio refer the case to the lupon concerned
for amicable settlement (Sec 408).
• The law, as written, makes no distinction whatsoever, with
respect to the classes of civil disputes that should be
compromised at the barangay level, in contradistinction to
the limitation imposed upon the lupon as regards its
authority over criminal cases.
• Read: Farrales v Camarista 327 S 84, March 2, 2000
• The confrontation before the lupon chairman OR the
pangkat is sufficient compliance with the pre-condition
for filing the case in court (Diu v CA 251 S 472).
• The conciliation process is compulsory not only for
cases falling under the exclusive competence of the
Municipal courts but also for actions cognizable by the
RTCs ( Sps Morata v Sps Go 125 S 444).
• The conciliation process at the barangay level is not
applicable to labor disputes (Montoya v Escayo 171 S
442).
 Matters that cannot be compromised
• However, the ff matters CANNOT be COMPROMISED under
the Civil Code:
• 1. Civil status of persons
• 2. the validity of a marriage or legal separation
• 3. any ground for legal separation
• 4. future support
• 5. the jurisdiction of courts
• 6. future legitime and
• 7. criminal liability (Art 2035, 2034, New Civil Code)
• Compromise agreements on these matters shall be null
and void. (Art 1409 (1), 2035 as cited in Joseph Emmanuel,
Restatement on the Law on Local Governments 2005, p 401
• There is no need to bring the dispute for settlement before the
barangay lupon when the parties are not ACTUAL RESIDENTS of the
same barangay, nor of different barangays within the same city or
municipality, nor of adjoining barangays of different cities or
municipalities (Tavora v Veloso, 117 S 613).
• Where the other co-defendants reside in barangays of different
municipalities, cities and provinces, there is NO NEED for
conciliation in the barangay lupon (Candido v Macapagal 221 S 328).
Case can be directly filed in court. It would not serve the purpose
of the law in discouraging litigation among members of the same
barangay thru conciliation where the other parties reside in
barangays other than the one where the lupon is located and where
the dispute arose.
 Venue
• In procedural law, for purposes of venue, RESIDENCE of a person is
his personal, actual or physical habitation or his actual residence or
place of abode, which may not necessarily be his legal residence of
domicile provided he resides therein with continuity and
consistency. Rules on venue:
• Disputes between persons actually residing in the SAME barangay
shall be brought for amicable settlement before the lupon of said
barangay.
• Those involving actual residents of different barangays within the
same city or municipality shall be brought in the barangay where
the RESPONDENT or any of the respondents actually resides, at the
election of the complainant.
• All disputes involving real property or any interest therein shall be
brought in the barangay where the real property or the larger
portion thereof is situated.
• Those arising at the workplace where the contending
parties are employed or at the institution where such
parties are enrolled for study, shall be brought in the
barangay where such workplace or institution is
located.
• Objections to venue shall be raised in the mediation
proceedings before the PB, otherwise, the same shall
be deemed waived. Any legal question which may
confront the PB in resolving objections to venue may
be submitted to the Secretary of Justice, or his duly
designated representative, whose ruling thereon shall
be binding (Sec 409).
 Meaning of residence
• For the law to apply, the residence of the parties refers not
only to their actual residence in the same city or
municipality, but also MEMBERSHIP in the barangay
(Bejer v CA 169 S 566). It signifies physical presence in a
place and actual stay thereat. No particular length of time
of residence is required though, however, the residence
must be more than temporary.
• Where from the allegations in the complaint, it is obvious
that the parties do not reside in the same city/municipality,
the dispute is excepted from referal to the lupon (Boleyley
v Villanueva 314 S 364).
• Referral to lupon is required only where parties are
INDIVIDUALS (Borromeo v Pogoy 126 S 217 1983; Gegare
vs CA 177 S 471, 1989).
• The Katarungang Pambarangay law does not refer to
legal residence or domicile. A party staying in an
apartment unit in Manila five days a week, every week,
but goes home to his house in Cavite during weekends,
ACTUALLY RESIDES in Manila within the meaning of the
law. (Garces v CA 162 S 504)
• If the other only contending party is the government or
its instrumentality or subdivision, the case falls within
the exception to amicable settlement at the lupon; but
when it is ONLY one of the contending parties, a
barangay conciliation should still be undertaken among
the parties (Gegare v CA 177 S 471). Read also: Farrales
v Camarista 327 S 84
Procedure for Amicable settlement
• 1. INITIATION - Upon payment of the appropriate
filing fee, any individual who has a cause of action
against another individual involving any matter within
the authority of the lupon may complain, orally or in
writing, to the lupon chairman (PB) of the barangay
(sec 410).
• Only individuals shall be parties to these proceedings
either as complainants or respondents. No complaint
by or against corporations, partnerships or other
juridical entities shall be filed, received, or acted upon
(Sec 1, Rule VI IRR). Read: Universal Robina Sugar
Milling v Heirs of Angel Teves 389 S 316 2002
 2. Mediation by Lupon Chairman
• Upon receipt of the complaint, 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 apper before him for a mediation of their
conflicting interests. If he fails in his mediation effort
within 15days from the first meeting of the parties before
him, he shall forthwith set a date for the constitution of the
pangkat in accordance with the provisions of the Code (Sec
410).
• Non appearance of notified party at scheduled conciliation
hearing justifies issuance by the PB of a certification for
filing action in court (Empaynado v CA 204 S 870 1991)
• Read: Milagros Lumbuan v Alfredo Ronquillo 155713 may 5,
2006; Alingsugay v Cagampang, Jr 143 S 146.
3. Suspension of Prescriptive period of
offenses
• While the dispute is 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 PB. The prescriptive
periods shall resume upon receipt by the
complainant of the complaint or the certificate of
repudiation or of the certification to file action
issued by the lupon or pangkat secretary. Such
interruption, however, shall not exceed 60days
from the filing of the complaint with the PB.
 4. Issuance of summons; Hearing;
Grounds for disqualification
• The pangkat shall convene not later than 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. In
the event that a party moves 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 resolved by the affirmative
vote of the majority of the pangkat whose decision shall be
final. Should disqualification be decided upon, the
resulting vacancy shall be filled as provided in Sec 410.
 5. Period to arrive at settlement
• The pangkat shall arrive at a settlement or resolution
of the dispute within 15days from the day it convenes.
This period shall, at the discretion of the pangkat, be
extendible for another period which shall not exceed
15days, except in clearly meritorious cases (Sec 410).
• All amicable settlements shall be in writing, in a
language or dialect known to the parties, signed by
them, and attested to by the PB or the pangkat
chairman, as the case may be. When the parties to the
dispute do not use the same language or dialect, the
settlement shall be written in the language or dialect
known to them (Sec 411).
 Conciliation as pre-condition to filing
of complaint in court
• No complaint, petition, action or proceeding involving any
matter within the authority of the lupon shall be filed or
instituted directly in court or any other government office
for adjudication, unless there has been a confrontation
between the parties before the lupon chairman or pangkat
chairman, and that no conciliation or settlement has been
reached as certified by the lupon secretary or pangkat
secretary as attested to by the lupon or pangkat chairman
or unless the settlement has been repudiated by the
parties thereto (Sec 412).
• Prior recourse to the conciliation procedure is not
JURISDICTIONAL such that noncompliance would not
deprive a court of its jurisdiction either over the subject
matter or over the person of the defendant.
• Non-compliance with the condition precedent could affect
the sufficiency of the plaintiff’s cause of action and make
his complaint vulnerable to dismissal on the ground of lack
of cause of action or prematurity. The condition is
analogous to exhaustion of administrative remedies, or the
lack of earnest efforts to compromise suits between family
members, lacking which the case can be dismissed
(Perigrina v Panis 133 S 72).
• Where, however, the fact of non compliance with and non
observance of such procedure has been seasonably raised
as an issue before the court first taking cognizance of the
complaint, dismissal of the action is proper (Felicidad Uy v
Hon. Maximo Contreras 111416 Sept 24, 1983).
 When seasonal?
• Failure to invoke the conciliation requirement in a
motion to dismiss before arraignment in a
criminal case is deemed a waiver of such
requirement (BanaresII v Balising 328 S 36).
• A criminal case dismissed without prejudice for
failure to comply with the conciliation
requirement may not be revived by mere Motion
after the 15day period to appeal has expired.
Complainants have to refile the cases after
securing the barangay certification (Banaress II).
Sec 412 - When parties may go directly
to court
• 1. where the accused is under detention
• 2. where a person has otherwise been deprived of
personal liberty calling for habeas corpus proceedings
• 3. where actions are coupled with provisional remedies
such as preliminary injunction, attachment, delivery of
personal property, and support pendente lite; and
• When the applications for a writ of preliminary
attachment/injunction are merely pretenses designed to
avoid the conciliation requirements, referral to the lupon is
still required (Peregrina v Panis 133 S 72).
• 4. where the action may otherwise be barred by the
statute of limitations.
• failure to object to non-compliance with condition
precedent amounts to waiver where party took part in trial
(Gonzales v CA 151 S 289; Sanchez v Tupas 158 S ).
• In the Judge Contreras case, the SC said: parties to disputes
cognizable by the lupon should with sincerity, exhaust the
remedies provided by that law, government prosecutors
should exercise due diligence in ascertaining compliance
with it, and trial courts should not hesitate to impose the
appropriate sanctions for non-compliance.
• The customs and traditions of indigenous cultural
communities shall be applied in settling disputes between
members of the cultural communities (Sec 412).
 Arbitration
• The parties may, at any stage of the proceedings, agree
in writing that they shall abide by the arbitration award
of the lupon chairman or the pangkat. Such agreement
to arbitrate may be repudiated within 5days from the
date thereof for the same grounds and in accordance
with the procedure prescribed. The arbitration award
shall be made after the lapse of the period of
repudiation and within 10days thereafter.
• The arbitration award shall be in writing in a language
or dialect known to the parties. When the parties to
the dispute do not use the same language or dialect,
the award shall be written in the language or dialect
known to them (Sec 413).
 Effects of Amicable Settlement
• The amicable settlement and arbitration award shall
have the FORCE and EFFECT of a FINAL JUDGMENT of a
court upon the expiration of 10days from the date
thereof, unless repudiation of the settlement has been
made or a petition to nullify the award has been filed
before the proper city/municipal court. However, this
rule shall not apply to court cases under the last par of
Sec 408 in which case the compromise settlement
agreed upon by the parties before the lupon or
pangkat chairman shall be submitted to the court and
upon approval thereof, have the force and effect of a
judgment of said court (Sec 416).
• The amicable settlement which is not repudiated within the
period therefor may be enforced by execution by the lupon
thru the PB within a time line of 6 months, and if the
settlement is not so enforced by the lupon after the lapse
of the said period, it may be enforced only by an action in
the proper city or municipal court (Sec 417).
• Where no repudiation was made during the 10day period,
the amicable settlement attains the status of finality and it
becomes the ministerial duty of the court to implement
and enforce it. Such rule however is not inflexible for it
admits of certain exceptions (Santos v Judge Isidro 178 S
645 ; Proceso Quiros v Marcelo Arjona 158901 Mar 9 2004).
• The remedial aspect of the action filed is governed by the
Regular Procedure.
 Repudiation
• Any party to the dispute may, within 10days from the
date of settlement, repudiate the same by filing with
the lupon chairman a statement to that effect sworn to
before him, where the consent is vitiated by fraud,
violence or intimidation. Such repudiation shall be
sufficient basis for the issuance of the certification for
filing a complaint ( Sec 418).
• An aggrieved party may only resort to court action
after he has repudiated the amicable settlement within
10days from date of such settlement by filing with the
lupon chairman a statement to that effect ( Galuba v
Laureta 157 S 627).
 Transmittal of Award to Court
• The secretary of the lupon shall transmit the
settlement or the arbitration award to the
appropriate city or municipal court within
5days from the date of award or from the
lapse of the 10day period repudiating the
settlement and shall furnish copies thereof to
each of the parties to the settlement and the
lupon chairman (Sec 419).
 Execution
• The time line in Sec 417 ( 6 months and
thereafter) should be construed to mean that if
the obligation in the settlement to be enforced is
due and demandable on the date of the
settlement, the 6-month period should be
counted from the date of the settlement;
otherwise, if the obligation to be enforced is due
and demandable on a date other than the date of
the settlement, the 6-month period should be
counted from the date the obligation becomes
due and demandable (Ma. Teresa Vidal v Ma
Teresa Escueta 156228 Dec 10, 2003).
• Sec 417 provides a mechanism for the enforcement of a
settlement of the parties before the lupon. It provides for a
two-tiered mode of enforcement of an amicable settlement
executed by the parties before the lupon, namely:
• a) by execution of the PB which is quasi-judicial and
summary in nature on mere motion of the party/parties
entitled thereto; the proceedings herein are covered by the
Code; and
• b) by an action in regular form, which remedy is judicial;
the proceedings are governed by the Rules of Court, as
amended (Regular Procedure). The cause of action is the
amicable settlement itself, which by operation of law has
the force and effect of a final judgment.
• Under the first remedy, the PB is called upon
during the hearing to determine solely the fact of
noncompliance of the terms of the settlement
and to give the defaulting party another chance
at voluntarily complying with his obligation under
the settlement in a period of 6 months.
• For the specific procedure in the execution of
settlement or award before the lupon, see Secs 3-
7, Rule VII IRR.
 Appearance of Parties in Person
• In all the proceedings, the parties must appear in person
without the assistance of counsel or representative, except
for minors and incompetents who may be assisted by their
next-of-kin who are not lawyers (Sec 415). It clearly
requires the personal appearance of the parties in
conciliation proceedings, unassisted by
counsel/representative. The rationale is to enable the
lupon to secure first hand and direct information about the
facts and issues, the exception being in cases where minors
or incompetents are parties. There can be no quibbling
that laymen of goodwill can easily agree to conciliate and
settle their disputes between themselves without what
sometimes is the unsettling assistance of lawyers whose
presence could sometimes obfuscate and confuse issues.
• Worse still, the participation of lawyers with
their penchant to use their analytical skills and
legal knowledge tend to prolong instead of
expedite settlement of the case (Atty Evelyn
Magno v Atty Olivia Velasco-Jacoba Nov 22,
2005 6296).
• Effects of failure to appear -
• Read: Sps Valdez v Sps Tabisula 175510, July
28, 2008
Effect of refusal or failure to appear of
any party/witness
• Refusal or failure of any party or witness to appear before the lupon
or pangkat in compliance with a summons issued may be punished
by the city/municipal court as for indirect contempt of court upon
application filed therewith by the lupon chairman, the pangkat
chairman, or by any of the contending parties. Such refusal or
willful failure to appear shall be reflected in in the records of the
lupon secretary or in the minutes of the pangkat secretary and shall
bar the complainant who fails to appear, from seeking judicial
recourse for the same cause of action, and the respondent who
refuses to appear from filing any counterclaim arising out of, or
necessarily connected with the complaint. A pangkat member who
serves as such shall be entitled to an honorarium, the amount of
which is to be determined by the Sanggunian concerned (Sec 515).
 Extent of the power to appoint of PB
• Applying the rule that the power to appoint includes
the power to remove, Sec 389 vests on the PB, upon
approval by a majority of all the members of the
sangguniang barangay, the power to appoint or replace
the barangay treasurer, secretary and other appointive
barangay officials. In the case of the barangay
secretary and treasurer, this provision is reinforced by
Sec 394 and 395.
• The power of appointment is to be exercised conjointly
by the PB and a majority of all the members of the
sangguniang barangay. Without such conjoint action,
neither an appointment nor a replacement can be
effectual (Alquizola Sr. v Ocol 313 S 273).