2020 GUIDELINES FOR THE CONDUCT OF
COURT-ANNEXED MEDIATION (CAM) AND
JUDICIAL DISPUTE RESOLUTION (JDR) IN
CIVIL CASES
A.M No. 19-10-20-SC, March 01, 2021
Chapter 1. Coverage
Section 1. Mandatory coverage for CAM in Civil
Cases. - The following cases shall be referred to
CAM:
(a) All ordinary civil cases, including mediatable
permissive or compulsory counterclaim or
cross-claim as pleaded in the answer,
complaint-in-intervention, and third (fourth,
etc.)-party complaint, except those which cannot be
the subject of a compromise under Article 2035 of
the New Civil Code;
(b) All special civil actions, except under Rules
63, 64, 65, 66, and 71 of the Rules of Court;
(c) Special proceedings cases for settlement of
estate where the dispute involves claims against the
estate, or the distribution or partition of estate in
intestate proceedings;
(d) All those cases involving issues under the
Family Code and other laws, in relation to support,
custody, visitation, property relations, guardianship
of minor children, and other issues which can be the
subject of a compromise agreement;
(e) Intellectual property cases;
(f) Commercial or intra-corporate controversies;
(g) Environmental cases, subject to the provisions in
Section 3, Rule 3 of the Rules of Procedure for
Environmental Cases (A.M. No. 09-6-8- SC); and
(h) Civil cases covered by the Rule on Summary
Procedure.
(b) All special civil actions, except under:
1. Rule 63 - Declaratory relief and similar
remedies
2. Rule 64 - Review of judgments and final
orders or resolutions of the COMELEC and the
COA.
3. Rule 65 - Certiorari, prohibition, and
mandamus
4. Rule 66 - Quo Warranto
5. Rule 71 - Contempt
Section 2. Referral to JDR in Civil Cases. - The
following cases may be referred to JDR:
(a) The cases enumerated in Section 1, except
environmental cases, may be referred to JDR
Notes on Alternative Dispute Resolution | Cerbo, Embalsado, Garcia, and Tan | 2024 | Page 1
upon failure of settlement or refusal to mediate
in CAM only if the judge of the court to which the
case was originally filed is convinced that settlement
is still possible;
(b) The following cases, brought on appeal from the
exclusive and original jurisdiction granted to the first-
level courts under the Judiciary Reorganization Act
of 1980, may be referred to JDR in areas declared
as JDR sites, if the RTC Judge is convinced that
settlement is still possible;
(1) all civil cases and settlement of estate,
testate and intestate;
(2) all cases of forcible entry and unlawful
detainer;
(3) all civil cases involving title to, or
possession of, real property or an interest
therein; and
(4) habeas corpus cases decided by the first
level court in the absence of any Regional
Trial Court Judge.
(a) GR: All cases enumerated in Section 1 may
be referred to JDR upon failure of settlement
or refusal to mediate in CAM only if the judge
of the court to which the case was originally
filed is convinced that settlement is still
possible
XPN: Environmental cases
Section 3. Permissive Referral to CAM and JDR
in Other Actions. - In all other actions or
proceedings where compromise is not prohibited by
law and there is a significant likelihood of
settlement, either or both of the parties may, by oral
manifestation or written motion after the
pre-trial/preliminary conference, or at any stage of
the proceedings, request the court to refer their
dispute to CAM and JDR, provided there are still
factual issues to be resolved.
● Permissive Referral to CAM and JDR is
allowed in all other actions, provided:
○ Compromise is not prohibited by law
○ There is significant likelihood of
settlement
● Who can initiate?
○ BY either or both of the parties
● How can it be initiated?
○ By oral manifestation or written motion
○ Request the court to refer their dispute
to CAM and JDR, provided there are
still factual issues to be resolved.
● When can it be initiated?
 ○ After the pre-trial/preliminary
conference, or at any stage of the
proceedings.
Section 4. Cases not subject to compromise. -
The following cases shall not be referred to CAM
and JDR:
(a) civil cases which cannot be the subject of a
compromise, to wit:
(1) The civil status of persons;
(2) The validity of a marriage or a legal
separation;
(3) Any ground for legal separation;
(4) Future support;
(5) The jurisdiction of courts; and
(6) Future legitime.
(b) habeas corpus petitions;
(c) special proceedings cases for probate of a will;
and
(d) cases with pending applications for restraining
orders or preliminary injunctions.
However, in cases covered under paragraphs (a)
and (d) where the parties inform the court that they
have agreed to undergo mediation on some aspects
thereof, e.g., custody of minor children, separation
of property, or support pendente lite, the court shall
refer them to mediation.
In (a) civil cases which cannot be subject to a
compromise (civil status of persons, validity of
marriage or legal separation, legal separation, future
support, jurisdiction of courts, and future legitime), and
(d) cases with pending applications for restraining
orders or preliminary injunctions, where the
parties inform the court that they have agreed to
undergo mediation on some aspects, the court
shall refer them to mediation.
Chapter 2. Pre-Trial or Preliminary Conference
Process
A. Preliminary to CAM and JDR
Section 1. Notice of Pre-Trial and Notice of
Preliminary Conference. - After the last responsive
pleading has been served and filed, the clerk of
court shall issue, within five (5) calendar days from
filing, a notice of pre-trial which shall be set not later
than sixty (60) calendar days from the filing of the
last responsive pleading.
For cases covered by the Rule on Summary
Procedure, the notice shall be issued within five (5)
Notes on Alternative Dispute Resolution | Cerbo, Embalsado, Garcia, and Tan | 2024 | Page 2
calendar days after the last answer is filed setting
the preliminary conference not later than thirty (30)
calendar days from the filing of the last responsive
pleading.
The notice of pre-trial/preliminary conference shall
include the dates set for (a) PreTrial/Preliminary
Conference, (b) Court-Annexed Mediation, and (c)
Judicial Dispute Resolution, if necessary.
The JDR proceedings may be conducted on the
day/s civil cases are heard. For purposes of
pre-setting, two (2) dates shall be allotted for JDR.
The PMC Unit (PMCU) shall be furnished with the
Notice of Pre-Trial/Preliminary Conference to ensure
the availability of accredited mediators on the
scheduled date for CAM.
The court shall also furnish the Office of the Clerk of
Court with a copy of the Notice of
PreTrial/Preliminary Conference for the purpose of
raffling the case to a prospective JDR Judge should
CAM fail and the Judge is convinced that settlement
is still possible.
(a) In multi-sala courts, upon receipt of the
Notice of Pre-Trial/Preliminary Conference,
the Clerk of Court shall immediately include
the case for raffle to another Judge. After
the raffle, the Clerk of Court shall inform
both the Judge and the prospective JDR
Judge of the outcome of such raffle.
(b) In single sala courts, the Clerk of Court shall
furnish the nearest court with the Notice of
Pre-Trial/Preliminary Conference stating the
scheduled date for JDR.
Notice of Pre-Trial
General Rules:
● When is NPT issued?
○ After the last responsive pleading has
been served and filed
○ within five (5) calendar days from filing
● Who issues the NPT?
○ The clerk of court
● When shall the pre-trial be set?
○ not later than sixty (60) calendar days
from the filing of the last responsive
pleading
XPN:
● In Summary Procedure, the notice shall be
issued within five (5) calendar days after the
last answer is filed, setting the preliminary
conference not later than thirty (30) calendar
days from the filing of the last responsive
pleading.
Section 2. Conduct of Pre-Trial/Preliminary
Conference. In addition to the purposes
enumerated in Section 2, Rule 18 on Pre-Trial under
 the 2019 Amendments to the 1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure, or in Section 7 of the Rule on Summary
Procedure, it shall be the duty of the Judge during
Pre-Trial/Preliminary Conference to:
(a) Orient the parties and counsels on the CAM
process and inform them that appearance
in the mediation proceedings before the
PMCU is mandatory and the parties are
expected to negotiate in good faith and
exert earnest efforts towards settlement but
that the decision whether or not to settle
their dispute is completely voluntary and
that no sanctions shall be imposed upon a
party who declines to settle during
mediation;
(b) Inform the parties that mediation shall be
conducted by the PMCU under the auspices
of the court, and that failure to appear
before the PMCU or any misconduct or
misbehavior committed by any of the parties
during the mediation proceedings, may be
punished by contempt of court or cause the
imposition of sanctions as provided in
Section 5, Rule 18 of the 2019 Amendments
to the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, or in
Section 7 of the Rule on Summary
Procedure, or under Sections 4 and 5, Part
D, Chapter 2 of these Guidelines;
(c) Inform the parties that, should there be
no settlement during CAM, the case may
be referred to another court for the
conduct of JDR if the Judge is convinced
that settlement is still possible; and
(d) Inform the parties that the JDR Judge may
conduct a non-binding early neutral
evaluation on the merits of their respective
cases.
At any time before the scheduled date for JDR, the
parties shall have the option to file a joint written
manifestation requesting the Judge to conduct
JDR and not refer the case to another Judge for
such purpose, and to proceed to trial if JDR
fails.
GR: Should there be no settlement during CAM, the
case MAY be referred to another court for the conduct
of JDR if the Judge is convinced that settlement is still
possible.
XPN: At any time before the scheduled date for
JDR, the parties shall have the option to file a joint
written manifestation requesting the Judge to
conduct JDR and not refer the case to another
Judge for such purpose, and to proceed to trial if JDR
fails.
Section 3. Pre-Trial Order and Referral to CAM. -
After pre-trial/preliminary conference and the issues
Notes on Alternative Dispute Resolution | Cerbo, Embalsado, Garcia, and Tan | 2024 | Page 3
have been joined, the court shall issue the
Pre-Trial/Preliminary Conference Order referring the
parties to mandatory Court-Annexed Mediation
unless the case is submitted for judgment on the
pleadings or summary judgment, motu proprio or
upon motion, should there be no more controverted
facts, or no more genuine issue as to any material
fact, or an absence of any issue, or should the
answer fail to tender an issue.
The court may also render a separate judgment
disposing of a claim after the pretrial/preliminary
conference or at any stage, when more than one
claim for relief is presented in an action and there is
already a determination of the issues material to that
particular claim and all counterclaims arising out of
the transaction or occurrence which is the subject
matter of the claim.
The Pre-Trial/Preliminary Conference Order shall
direct the parties to immediately proceed and
personally appear at the PMCU for mediation
proceedings. The court shall furnish the PMCU with
a copy of the Pre-Trial/ Preliminary Conference
Order to aid the mediators in the conduct of
mediation. The mediators shall ensure the
confidentiality of documents made available to them
by the court.
The court shall also furnish the Office of the Clerk of
Court and the prospective JDR Judge with a copy of
the Pre-Trial/ Preliminary Conference Order.
GR: The court shall issue an order referring the parties
to mandatory Court-Annexed Mediation
XPN: The case is submitted for judgment on the
pleadings or summary judgment, motu proprio or upon
motion. The court may also render a separate
judgment disposing of a claim.
B. CAM in Pre-Trial/Preliminary Conference
Section 1. Receipt of Notice of
Pre-Trial/Preliminary Conference. - Upon receipt
of the Notice of Pre-Trial/ Preliminary Conference,
the PMCU staff shall immediately record in the
logbook the scheduled date for CAM and ensure the
availability of accredited mediators should the case
be eventually referred for CAM.
Section 2. Initial Appearance of Parties and
Counsels. - On the date set for CAM, the parties
and their counsels shall appear at the PMCU for
mediation proceedings. The PMCU staff shall
require the parties to present proof that the
mediation fees have been paid.
 Section 3. Selection of Mediator. - During the
initial appearance of parties, the PMCU staff shall
assist them in selecting a mutually acceptable
mediator from among the roster of mediators in
the PMCU. Copies of the resumes of the mediators
shall be made available to assist the parties in
selecting their mediator.
The mediator must be mutually acceptable for both
parties.
Section 4. Assignment of Mediator. - If the parties
are unable to jointly select a common mediator,
the PMCU staff shall, in the presence of the parties,
choose the mediator who shall mediate the dispute
by lot from among the mediators present at the unit.
If there are no mediators available in the unit, the
mediator shall be chosen by lot from the roster of
mediators by the PMCU staff in the presence of the
parties.
If the parties fail to jointly select a common mediator, it
shall be chosen by drawing lots.
Section 5. Role of Mediator. - The mediator shall
be considered an officer of the court while
performing his/her duties as such or in connection
therewith.
A mediator is an officer of the court.
Section 6. Conduct of Mediation. -
(a) Upon his/her selection or assignment, the
mediator shall immediately start the mediation
process unless the parties and the mediator agree
to reset the initial mediation conference, which shall
not be later than five (5) calendar days from the
original date. The initial mediation conference may,
likewise, be reset when the selected mediator is not
present in the PMCU.
(b) At the initial conference, the mediator shall
explain to both parties the mediation process,
stating the benefits of an early settlement of their
dispute based on their mutual interests, instead of
the legal positions.
(c) With the consent of both parties, the
mediator may hold separate caucuses with each
party to determine their respective real interests in
the dispute.
(d) Thereafter, a joint conference may be held
to consider various options that may resolve the
dispute through reciprocal concessions and on
Notes on Alternative Dispute Resolution | Cerbo, Embalsado, Garcia, and Tan | 2024 | Page 4
terms that are mutually beneficial to both the parties.
(a) Reset of initial mediation conference shall not
be later than 5 calendar days from the
original date.
(b) Mediator explains the mediation process.
(c) Mediators may hold separate caucuses with
the consent of the parties.
(d) There must be joint mediation.
Section 7. Disclosure and Inhibition. - If, at any
time, the mediator discovers any fact or
circumstance that may affect his/her impartiality,
he/she shall disclose the same to the parties and
inhibit himself/herself unless the parties decide in
writing to retain him/her, and he/she so agrees.
Should either party object to the mediator's
assignment on the ground of relationship, or
fiduciary or pecuniary interest or any similar ground,
the mediator shall decline to accept the
appointment and the parties shall be allowed to
select another mediator in accordance with the
same procedure by which the original mediator
was selected. The mediator's acceptance of a
request for him/her to withdraw shall not imply the
truth or validity of the reason for which his/her
recusal had been sought.
GR: If, at any time, the mediator discovers any fact or
circumstance that may affect his/her impartiality,
he/she shall disclose the same to the parties and
inhibit himself/herself
XPN: The parties decide in writing to retain him/her,
and he/she so agrees.
Section 8. Duration of CAM Proceedings. - The
mediator shall have a period of not exceeding thirty
(30) calendar days to complete the mediation
process without further extension. Such period shall
be computed from the date of the order referring the
case to CAM.
Duration of CAM Proceedings - not exceeding 30
calendar days from the date of the order referring the
case to CAM, without further extension
Section 9. Suspension of Periods. - The period
during which the case is undergoing Court Annexed
Mediation shall be excluded from the mandatory
period for trial and rendition of judgment.
Section 10. Successful Settlement in CAM. - If
settlement is reached, the parties shall draft the
compromise agreement with the assistance of
their respective counsels. The mediator shall make
available samples/templates of agreements to assist
the parties in preparing their agreement.
The PMCU shall submit to the referring Judge a
Mediator's Report on the result of the mediation
proceedings, together with a copy of the
compromise agreement and its attachments, if any,
within the period provided for in Section 12, Part B
of this Chapter.
There is failure in CAM in the following instances:
(a) When the parties mediate in good
faith but no agreement was reached
by them despite the efforts exerted by
the assigned mediator; or
(b) When either one or both parties fail to
appear after they have started to
negotiate in a previous mediation
conference wherein the mediator
exerted efforts to assist the parties in
settling their dispute.

Upon receipt of the Mediator's Report, the Judge

shall evaluate the Compromise Agreement attached ● A MEDIATOR’s REPORT is necessary
thereto, if any, and after his/her evaluation, he/she specifying the failure of CAM based on the
may proceed to:
following grounds:
○ Parties mediate in good faith but no
(a) approve the agreement and render agreement is reached
judgment based thereon;
○ Either or both of the parties fail to
(b) disapprove the agreement for being
contrary to law, morals, good appear after the start of negotiations.
customs, public order, or public
policy, or upon a finding, based on a
Section 12. Submission of Mediator's Report. -
verified motion by any party, and
The PMCU staff and the assigned mediator shall
after hearing, that the mediation
ensure the timely submission of the Mediator's
proceeding, or the preparation of the
Report to the referring judge.
settlement agreement had been
attended by fraud, mistake,
(a) In case of settlement, after the signing of
violence or intimidation; or
the compromise agreement;
(c) clarify the intentions of the parties if
the court determines that the
(b) In case any of the parties refuse to mediate,
agreement or any portion thereof is
on the date of such refusal;
vague, defective, or unenforceable,
and direct them to amend the same
(c) In case of refusal to settle prior to the end of
accordingly.
the mediation period, after the parties indicate their
In the situation described in paragraphs (b) and (c) desire to terminate the mediation proceedings; or
above, the court may, in lieu of disapproval or
amendment of the agreement, determine (d) In case the parties fail to settle within the
whether to refer the case to JDR or proceed to mediation period, after the lapse of the said period.
trial. There is a refusal to mediate when one or both
parties:
(a) fail to appear in at least two successive
mediation sessions;
● There must be a COMPROMISE
AGREEMENT when a settlement is reached. (b) refuse or fail to pay mediation fees; or,
● A MEDIATOR’S REPORT by PMCU shall be
submitted to the referring judge. (c) refuse to participate in the mediation
● Should the court disapprove or amend the proceedings.
agreement, it may, in lieu of disapproval or
amendment of the agreement, determine
Section 13. Judgments in CAM. - Judgments
whether to refer the case to JDR or
approving the compromise agreements of the
proceed to trial. parties shall contain a statement that the same were
rendered through CAM in order to distinguish them
from Judgments based on compromise agreements
Section 11. Non-settlement in CAM. - If the parties
entered into during JDR.
do not settle during CAM, the PMCU staff shall,
within the period provided for under the succeeding
Copies of said Judgments shall be submitted to the
section, submit a Mediator's Report to the court
PMCU for documentation purposes.
specifying the result of the mediation.

Notes on Alternative Dispute Resolution | Cerbo, Embalsado, Garcia, and Tan | 2024 | Page 5
C. JDR in Pre-Trial/Preliminary Conference
Section 1. Mediator's Report from the PMC Unit.
- Upon receipt of the Mediator's Report stating that
no settlement was reached in CAM, the referring
judge shall determine, in the hearing set for
such purpose, if settlement is still possible and
refer the case to the JDR Judge if he/she is thus
convinced.
In case of partial settlement, the Judge shall refer
the unsettled part of the dispute to the JDR Judge, if
convinced that settlement is still possible.
The determination by the referring judge on whether or
not settlement is still possible should be done in a
hearing set for such purpose.
Partial Settlement with possibility of complete
settlement: refer to JDR judge the unsettled part.
Section 2. How referred. -
(a) In multiple sala courts, the Judge shall
refer the case to the JDR Judge previously
determined through raffle by the Office of
the Clerk of Court.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, at any time
before the scheduled date for JDR, the
parties may file a joint written
manifestation requesting the Judge to
proceed with the conduct of JDR despite
confidential information that may be
divulged during the JDR proceedings
subject to the condition that if JDR does not
succeed, the Judge shall continue with the
case.
(b) In first-level single sala courts, the JDR
proceedings shall be conducted by the
judge of the nearest first level court as
determined by the concerned Executive
Judge. However, if the nearest court is a
second-level court with multiple branches,
the case may be referred to the said court,
regardless of the level of the latter court.
In single sala RTC courts, the JDR
proceedings shall be conducted by the
judge of the nearest court as determined by
the concerned Executive Judge, regardless
of the level of the latter court.
The JDR proceedings shall be conducted at
the station where the case was originally
filed.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, at any time
before the scheduled date for JDR, the
Notes on Alternative Dispute Resolution | Cerbo, Embalsado, Garcia, and Tan | 2024 | Page 6
parties may file a joint written manifestation
requesting the Judge to proceed with the
conduct of JDR despite confidential
information that may be divulged during the
JDR proceedings subject to the condition
that if JDR does not succeed, the Judge
shall continue with the case.
(c) In Family Courts and Special
Commercial Courts
(1) Where the principal case is filed in a
multi-sala court of which only one
branch has been designated as a
Family Court or Special Commercial
Court, the JDR proceedings shall
be conducted by the JDR Judge
previously determined through raffle
by the Office of the Clerk of Court.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, at
any time before the scheduled date
for JDR, the parties may file a joint
written manifestation requesting the
Family Cert or Special Commercial
Court to proceed with the conduct
of JDR despite confidential
information that may be divulged
during the JDR proceedings subject
to the condition that if JDR does not
succeed, the said Family Court or
Special Commercial Court shall
continue with the case.
(2) If there are two or more Family
Courts or Special Commercial
Courts, the case shall be referred
for JDR to the Judge previously
determined through raffle by the
Office of the Clerk of Court.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, at
any time before the scheduled elate
for JDR, the parties may file a joint
written manifestation requesting the
Family Court or Special Commercial
Court to proceed with the conduct
of JDR despite confidential
information that may be divulged
during the JDR proceedings subject
to the condition that if JDR does not
succeed, the said Family Court or
Special Commercial Court shall
continue with the case.
When there is no designated
special court in multi-sala courts,
family court cases and commercial
cases shall be treated as regular
cases for purposes of referral to
another Judge for JDR.
 REFERRAL TO JDR JUDGE
Multiple Sala Courts
Judge: refer to JDR Judge previously determined
through raffle
Joint Written Manifestation
At any time before the scheduled JDR
➢ The parties may file JWM requesting the
Judge to proceed with the conduct of JDR
➢ This is despite confidential information that
may be divulged during the JDR
proceedings
➢ If JDR does not succeed, the Judge shall
continue with the case.
Single Sala Courts
First Level Courts
➢ JDR shall be conducted by nearest first
level court as determined by the Executive
Judge
➢ If nearest court is a second level court, case
may be referred to it.
Second Level Courts
➢ JDR shall be conducted by the judge of the
nearest court as determined by the
Executive Judge
Joint Written Manifestation
At any time before the scheduled JDR
➢ The parties may file JWM requesting the
Judge to proceed with the conduct of JDR
➢ This is despite confidential information that
may be divulged during the JDR
proceedings
➢ If JDR does not succeed, the Judge shall
continue with the case.
Family Courts and Special Commercial Courts
➢ Principal Case was filed in Family Court or
Special Commercial Court
Multi-Sala Court with ONE or TWO or MORE Family
Court/Special Court
➢ refer to JDR Judge previously determined
through raffle
Joint Written Manifestation
At any time before the scheduled JDR
➢ The parties may file JWM requesting the
Family court or Special Court to proceed
with the conduct of JDR
➢ This is despite confidential information that
may be divulged during the JDR
proceedings
➢ If JDR does not succeed, the Family court
or Special Court shall continue with the
case.
Notes on Alternative Dispute Resolution | Cerbo, Embalsado, Garcia, and Tan | 2024 | Page 7
★ NO designated special court in multi-sala
courts:
○ family court cases and commercial
cases shall be treated as regular
cases for purposes of referral to
another Judge for JDR.
Section 3. Duration - The JDR Judge shall conduct
the JDR proceedings immediately upon receipt of
the referral order and terminate the proceedings
within a non-extendible period of fifteen (15)
calendar days from receipt of the said referral order.
If the parties fail to settle during the first JDR
session, the JDR Judge shall set the case for
another JDR session, provided that the fifteen
(15)-calendar clay period has not lapsed.
If the parties file a joint written manifestation for the
Judge to conduct JDR, he/she shall immediately do
so either from receipt of the notice of failure of CAM
or the said joint manifestation, which process shall
not exceed a period of fifteen (15) calendar days
from receipt of such notice or manifestation.
In all instances, the case record shall remain with
the Judge but in multi-sala courts, only the referral
order, including a copy of the Complaint, Answer,
Pre-Trial Order, and the Mediator's Report, shall be
forwarded to the JDR Judge.
JDR Poceedings (fifteen (15) calendar days)
➢ Immediately commence from receipt of the
said referral order and terminate within fifteen
(15) calendar days
➢ Second JDR proceeding may be commenced
as long as 15 days has not elapsed
Joint Written Manifestation
➢ Judge shall immediately commence JDR
either from receipt of the notice of failure of
CAM or the said joint manifestation
Note:
➢ Case record shall remain with the judge
➢ In Multi-Sala Courts, JDR judge shall have a
copy of:
a. Referral Order
b. Complaint
c. Answer
d. Pre-Trial Order
e. Mediator’s Report
Section 4. Who may conduct. - Unless otherwise
directed by the Supreme Court, only those judges
who have undergone skills-based training in JDR
procedures and stationed in areas declared as JDR
sites, are authorized to conduct JDR proceedings in
accordance with these Guidelines.
Who may conduct?
GR: Judges who
● have undergone skills-based training
in JDR procedures AND
● stationed in areas declared as JDR
sites
XPN: Unless otherwise directed by the Supreme Court
Section 5. How conducted. - If the parties do not
settle their dispute during CAM, the parties and their
respective counsels shall appear on the scheduled
date before the JDR Judge, who shall then conduct
the JDR process as mediator, conciliator, and/ or
neutral evaluator to actively assist and facilitate
negotiations among the parties for them to settle
their dispute.
As mediator and conciliator, the JDR Judge
facilitates the settlement discussions between the
parties and tries to reconcile their differences.
As a neutral evaluator, the JDR Judge assesses the
relative strengths and weaknesses of each party's
case and makes a non-binding and impartial
evaluation of the chances of each party's success in
the case so that he/she may guide the parties to a
fair and mutually acceptable settlement of their
dispute.
JDR Judge
As Mediator and Conciliator
➢ facilitate the settlement discussions
between the parties
➢ try to reconcile their differences
As Neutral Evaluator
1. assesses the relative strengths and
weaknesses of each party's case
2. makes NON-BINDING and
IMPARTIAL evaluation of success
3. guide to a FAIR and MUTUALLY
ACCEPTABLE settlement
Note: Parties and their respective counsels shall
appear on the scheduled date before the JDR Judge.
Section 6. Non-suspension of period. - The
period during which the case is undergoing JDR
shall not be excluded from the regular and
mandatory periods for trial and rendition of judgment
in ordinary cases and in cases covered by the Rule
on Summary Procedure.
JDR shall NOT SUSPEND regular and mandatory
periods for trial and rendition of judgment in ordinary
cases and in cases covered by the Rule on Summary
Procedure.
Section 7. Settlement in JDR. - If the case is
Notes on Alternative Dispute Resolution | Cerbo, Embalsado, Garcia, and Tan | 2024 | Page 8
settled in JDR, the JDR Judge shall accomplish the
JDR Report and return the case to the Judge for
appropriate action.
(a) If full settlement is reached, the parties, who
may be assisted by their respective
counsels, shall draft the compromise
agreement, which shall be submitted to the
Judge for judgment upon compromise,
enforceable by execution.
(b) Where full compliance with the terms of the
compromise agreement is forthwith made,
the parties, instead of submitting a
compromise agreement, shall submit a
satisfaction of claims or a mutual withdrawal
of the parties' respective claims and
counterclaims on the basis of which, the
Judge shall issue an order declaring the
case terminated.
(c) If partial settlement is reached, the
parties shall, with the assistance of
counsels, submit the terms thereof for the
approval of the Judge and rendition of a
judgment upon partial compromise, which
may be enforced by execution without
waiting for resolution of the unsettled part.
In relation to the unsettled part of the
dispute, the case shall proceed to trial until
judgment.
To ensure the equitable distribution of
cases, the JDR Judge shall be entitled to a
credit for every successfully settled case in
JDR, hence, shall be exempt from receiving
a newly-filed case during raffle equivalent to
the number of cases settled during JDR.
This is regardless of any action which the
Judge to whom the case was originally filed
may take on the settlement reached by the
parties before the JDR Judge.
Document: JDR Report to be submitted by JDR
Judge to the Judge
A. Full Settlement
➢ Parties, assisted by counsel, shall
draft the Compromise Agreement
➢ submitted to the Judge for judgment
upon compromise
○ enforceable by execution.
B. Full Compliance with the terms of the
Compromise Agreement
➢ Parties shall file a satisfaction of
claims;
➢ OR a mutual withdrawal of the parties'
respective claims and counterclaims
➢ Judge shall issue an order declaring
the case terminated
 C. Partial Settlement
➢ Settled Part
○ Parties, assisted by counsel, shall
submit the terms of partial settlement
to the Judge
■ For judgment upon partial
compromise
■ enforceable by execution
without waiting for resolution
of the unsettled part
➢ Unsettled Part
○ Proceed to trial until judgment
Section 8. Non-settlement in JDR. - If the case is
not settled in JDR, the JDR Judge shall accomplish
the JDR Report and return the case to the Judge for
appropriate action.
Non-settlement: JDR Report + return the case to the
Judge
Section 9. Judgments in JDR. - Judgments
approving the compromise agreements of the
parties, through the efforts of the judge as a
mediator, conciliator, or neutral evaluator, shall
contain a statement that the Judgment was
achieved through JDR in order to distinguish it from
Judgments approving compromise agreements
secured through CAM.
Judgment shall contain a statement that it was
achieved through JDR. This will distinguish it from
Judgments approving compromise agreements
secured through CAM.
Section 10. Non-Applicability to Environmental
cases and Small Claims Cases. -
(a) In environmental cases, no JDR shall be
conducted. The conduct of mediation proceedings
shall be governed by Sections 3, 6 and 10, Rule 3 of
A.M. No. 09-6-8-C on the Rules of Procedure for
Environmental Cases.
(b) In small claims cases, Section 23 of the
Revised Rules of Procedure for Small Claims
Cases, as amended, shall apply.
JDR is not applicable to environmental and small
claims cases.
D. Common Provisions to CAM and JDR
1. Appearance of Parties
Notes on Alternative Dispute Resolution | Cerbo, Embalsado, Garcia, and Tan | 2024 | Page 9
Section 1. Appearance of individual parties. -
The parties and their respective counsels shall
personally appear before the mediator or the JDR
Judge on the duly-designated date for CAM or JDR.
An individual party may be represented only for a
valid cause, such as acts of God, force majeure, or
duly substantiated physical inability. The
representative shall be fully authorized, through a
Special Power of Attorney, to appear and to offer,
negotiate, accept, decide, and enter into a
compromise agreement, without need of further
approval by or notification to the authorizing parties.
Personal appearance by parties and counsel is
REQUIRED.
Reasons for Representation
1. Acts of God
2. Force Majeure
3. Duly substantiated physical inability
Requirement for Representation of Individual
Special Power of Attorney - to appear and to offer,
negotiate, accept, decide, and enter into a compromise
agreement, without need of further approval by or
notification to the authorizing parties.
Section 2. Appearance of corporations,
partnerships, or other juridical entities.
Corporations, partnerships, or other juridical entities
shall be represented by a proper officer or person,
fully authorized by a Board Resolution or Secretary's
Certificate to offer, negotiate, accept, decide, and
enter into a compromise agreement, without need of
further approval by or notification to the authorizing
party.
Requirement for Representation of Juridical
Entities
1. Represented by a proper officer or person
2. Fully authorized by a Board Resolution or
Secretary's Certificate to offer, negotiate,
accept, decide, and enter into a compromise
agreement,
3. Without need of further approval by or
notification to the authorizing party.
Section 3. Effect of failure to bring required
authorization. -
(a) In case of failure of the representative
during CAM to bring the required
authorization or, having full authority,
refuses to exercise the same or claims that
further approval from their principal is
needed, the Mediator may reset the
proceedings within the thirty (30)-calendar
 day period referred to in Section 8, Part B of
this Chapter.
(b) In case of failure of the representative
during JDR to bring the required
authorization without valid cause or having
full authority, refuses to exercise the same
or claims that further approval from their
principal is needed, the said principal shall
be deemed absent and the JDR
proceedings shall be terminated. The JDR
Judge shall transmit the JDR Report to the
referring Judge indicating the outcome of
the JDR and any appropriate
recommendation.
What happens if there is:
a. failure to bring the required authorization
without valid cause or
b. having full authority, refuses to exercise the
same or
c. claims that further approval from their
principal is needed?
➢ If during CAM:
○ Mediator may reset the proceedings
within the thirty (30)-calendar day
period
➢ If during JDR:
○ Principal shall be deemed absent and
the JDR proceedings shall be
terminated
○ The JDR Judge shall transmit the JDR
Report to the referring Judge
indicating the outcome of the JDR
2. Sanctions
Section 4. Imposition of Sanctions. - In addition to
paragraph (b) of the preceding Section, the Judge,
upon recommendation of the mediator or JDR
Judge, or upon motion of the interested party, or
motu proprio, may impose sanctions upon the
following:
(a) Any party who fails to appear before the
mediator or JDR Judge despite due notice;
or
(b) Any person who engages in contemptuous
conduct during mediation or JDR
proceedings.
Sanctions for non appearance despite due notice
(refer to Section 5) or contempuous acts in CAM or
JDR proceedings.
Section 5. Imposable sanctions. - The trial court
shall impose the following sanctions:
Notes on Alternative Dispute Resolution | Cerbo, Embalsado, Garcia, and Tan | 2024 | Page 10
(a) dismissal of the case, when there is failure
of the plaintiff and counsel to appear without
valid cause when so required; or
(b) ex parte presentation of plaintiff's
evidence and dismissal of defendant's
counterclaim when there is failure of the
defendant and counsel to appear without
valid cause when so required
The court may, likewise, impose other sanctions,
including but not limited to:
A. censure;
B. reprimand;
C. contempt; or
D. reimbursement by the absent party of the
costs of the appearing party, including
attorney's fees for that day up to treble such
costs, payable on or before the date of the
re-scheduled setting.
What are the imposable sanctions?
1. Dismissal of the case for failure to appear
without valid cause
2. Dismissal of defendant’s counterclaim and ex
parte presentation of plaintiff’s evidence
3. Censure
4. Reprimand
5. Contempt
6. Reimbursement of costs of the appearing
party
Note: list is NOT exclusive
Section 6. Lifting or setting aside of sanction. -
Upon motion of the sanctioned party, the trial court,
in the exercise of its sound discretion, may lift, set
aside, or modify the sanctions imposed.
Lifting of sanctions is upon motion of the sanctioned
party.
3. Confidentiality
Section 7. Confidentiality. - Any and all matters
discussed, or communications made, including
requests for mediation, and documents presented
during CAM or JDR proceedings, shall be
privileged and confidential.
The mediator or JDR Judge shall not, in any
manner, record the proceedings. No transcript or
minutes of mediation proceedings shall be taken. If
personal notes are taken for guidance, the notes
shall be destroyed. Should such records exist, the
same shall also be privileged and confidential.
All privileged and confidential information obtained
 in CAM or JDR shall be inadmissible as evidence for
any purpose in any other proceedings. However,
evidence or information that is otherwise admissible
does not become inadmissible solely by reason of
its use in CAM or JDR.
Further, the JDR Judge shall not pass any
information obtained in the course of conciliation
and early neutral evaluation to any other Judge or to
any other person. This prohibition shall apply to all
court personnel, or to any other person present
during such proceeding, or who obtained any
information on the case. All JDR conferences shall
be conducted in private.
CAM and JDR Proceedings shall be PRIVILEGED and
CONFIDENTIAL.
➢ No record, transcript or minutes of mediation
shall be allowed.
➢ Notes shall be destroyed.
➢ Should such records exist, the same shall also
be privileged and confidential and inadmissible
as evidence for any purpose in any other
proceedings.
➢ However, evidence or information that is
otherwise admissible does not become
inadmissible solely by reason of its use in
CAM or JDR.
➢ JDR Judge is prohibited from passing
information obtained in the proceedings to any
other Judge or person.
➢ Same prohibition shall apply to all court
personnel, or to any other person present
during such proceeding, or who obtained any
information on the case.
➢ All JDR conferences shall be conducted in
private.
4. Role of Lawyers
Section 8. Role of Lawyers. - Lawyers who attend
mediation proceedings as advisers and consultants
to their clients, shall drop their combative role in the
adjudicative process and give up their dominant role
in judicial trials. They must accept a less directive
role in order to allow the parties more opportunities
to craft their own agreement. They shall perform the
following functions:
(a) Notify the party he/she represents of the
schedule of CAM and JDR as mandated
under Section 3, Rule 18 of the 2019
Amendments to the 1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure and ensure their appearance;
(b) Explain the mediation process to their
clients, help them understand its benefits,
and encourage them to assume greater
Notes on Alternative Dispute Resolution | Cerbo, Embalsado, Garcia, and Tan | 2024 | Page 11
personal responsibility in making decisions
to resolve the dispute. They shall also
discuss with their clients the following:
1. The substantive issues involved in
the dispute;
2. Prioritization of resolution in terms
of importance;
3. Understanding the position of the
other side and the underlying fears,
concerns, and needs underneath
that position; iv. Need for more
information or facts to be gathered
or exchanged with the other part for
informed decision-making;
4. Possible bargaining options, but
stressing the need to be
open-minded about other
possibilities; and
5. The best, worst, and most likely
alternatives to a negotiated
agreement.
(c) Assist in preparing a compromise
agreement that is not contrary to law,
morals, good customs, public order, or
public policy, emphasizing voluntary
compliance and consequences of breach
thereof.
(d) Whenever applicable, assist in the
preparation of a manifestation of satisfaction
of claims and mutual withdrawal of
complaint and counterclaim as the basis for
the court to issue an order of dismissal.
What are the roles of a lawyer?
1. Notify the party he/she represents of the
schedule of CAM and JDR
2. Explain the mediation process to their clients
including the benefits and responsibilities
a. The substantive issues involved in the
dispute;
b. Prioritization of resolution in terms of
importance;
c. Understanding the position of the
other side and the underlying fears,
concerns, and needs underneath that
position; iv. Need for more information
or facts to be gathered or exchanged
with the other part for informed
decision-making;
d. Possible bargaining options, but
stressing the need to be open-minded
about other possibilities; and
e. The best, worst, and most likely
alternatives to a negotiated agreement
3. Assist in preparing a compromise agreement
4. Assist in the preparation of a manifestation of
satisfaction of claims and mutual withdrawal of
complaint, if applicable

Chapter 3. JDR on Appeal
Section 1. Coverage. - JDRA shall cover those
enumerated under Section 2(b) of Chapter 1 of
these Guidelines, except those cases brought on
appeal involving purely legal issues.
Section 2. (b) The following cases, brought on appeal
from the exclusive and original jurisdiction granted to
the first- level courts under the Judiciary
Reorganization Act of 1980, may be referred to JDR in
areas declared as JDR sites, if the RTC Judge is
convinced that settlement is still possible;
1. all civil cases and settlement of estate, testate
and intestate;
2. all cases of forcible entry and unlawful
detainer;
3. all civil cases involving title to, or possession
of, real property or an interest therein; and
4. habeas corpus cases decided by the first level
court in the absence of any Regional Trial
Court Judge.
Section 2. Issuance of Order -
(a) Within fifteen (15) calendar days from
receipt of the memorandum on appeal and
without prejudice to the filing of an
appellee's brief, the RTC Judge shall
determine if settlement is still possible.
(b) Upon determination by the RTC Judge that
settlement is still possible, and with the
written conformity of the parties through an
Agreement to Mediate, the RTC Judge shall
issue an Order setting the case for JDRA.
The parties shall indicate in the Agreement
to Mediate that, despite confidential
information that may be divulged during the
JDR proceedings, the RTC Judge having
appellate jurisdiction shall proceed to render
judgment on appeal if JDR fails.
(c) The Order shall require the parties to
attend in person or, in the case of corporate
litigants, through a duly-authorized
representative, as required under Sections
1 and 2, Part D, Chapter 2 of these
Guidelines.
(d) If the RTC Judge should determine that
settlement is not possible, he/she shall
proceed to render judgment on appeal.
Issuance of Order
Notes on Alternative Dispute Resolution | Cerbo, Embalsado, Garcia, and Tan | 2024 | Page 12
1. RTC judge shall determine if settlement is
possible within 15 days from receipt of
memorandum on appeal
➢ without prejudice to the filing
of an appellee's brief
2. If settlement is possible:
a. Execute an Agreement to Mediate
i. With a statement that if JDR
fails, RTC Judge having
appellate jurisdiction shall
proceed to render judgment
on appeal
b. RTC Judge shall issue an Order
srtting the case for JDRA
i. Order shall require the parties
to attend in person or, in the
case of corporate litigants,
through a duly-authorized
representative
3. If the RTC Judge should determine that
settlement is not possible, he/she shall
proceed to render judgment on appeal.
Section 3. Conduct of JDRA. - On the date set in
the order, the RTC Judge shall exert all efforts to
resolve the dispute through JDRA but shall not
conduct neutral evaluation. Any settlement shall be
in writing, signed by the parties and approved by the
RTC Judge.
What is the duty of the RTC Judge?
To exert all efforts to resolve the dispute without any
neutral evaluation.
The settlement shall be:
1. In writing
2. Signed by the parties
3. Approved by the RTC Judge
Section 4. Duration of JDRA proceedings. - The
RTC Judge shall have a period of not exceeding
fifteen (15) calendar days to complete the JDR
proceedings. Such period shall be computed from
the date when the parties first appeared for the
initial conference as stated in the order to appear.
An extended period of another fifteen (15) calendar
days may be granted by the court upon joint written
motion filed by both parties on the ground that
settlement is likely to be concluded. The Court shall
make available samples/templates of agreements to
assist the parties in preparing their agreement.
Period: 15 days from initial appearance on the date
stated in the Order
Extension: another 15 calendar days
> Joint Written Motion of Parties that
settlement is likely to be concluded
Section 5. Settlement in JDRA. - If full settlement
is reached on appeal, the parties, who may be
assisted by their respective counsels, shall draft the
compromise agreement, which shall be submitted to
the RTC Judge for judgment upon compromise.
Where compliance with the terms of the
compromise is forthwith made, the parties shall
instead submit a mutual satisfaction of claims and
counterclaims or a mutual withdrawal of the appeal.
If partial settlement is reached, the parties shall, with
the assistance of their respective counsels, submit
the terms thereof for the court's verification and
approval, and rendition of a judgment upon partial
compromise. The court shall proceed to render a
decision as to the unsettled portion within the
prescribed period.
1. Full Settlement
a. Parties, assisted by counsel, shall
draft the Compromise Agreement
b. submitted to the RTC Judge for
judgment upon compromise
2. Full Compliance with the terms of the
Compromise Agreement
a. Parties shall file a satisfaction of
claims; or
b. Mutual satisfaction of claims and
counterclaims; or
c. Mutual withdrawal of the appeal
3. Partial Settlement
➢ Settled Part
○ Parties, assisted by counsel, shall
submit the terms thereof for the court's
verification and approval
○ Rendition of a judgment upon partial
compromise
➢ Unsettled Part
○ Render judgment within period
Section 6. Non-settlement in JDRA. - If JDRA
fails, the RTC Judge shall issue an order declaring a
failure of JDR and render a decision within the
prescribed period.
What happens if JDRA fails?
RTC Judge shall issue an order declaring a failure of
JDR and render a decision within the prescribed
period.
Notes on Alternative Dispute Resolution | Cerbo, Embalsado, Garcia, and Tan | 2024 | Page 13
Section 7. Action to be taken when the First
Level Court dismisses the case for lack of
jurisdiction. - Referral to CAM - In cases where
the RTC Judge affirms on appeal the order of
dismissal for lack of jurisdiction, and the RTC Judge
finds the case within his/her jurisdiction, instead of
trying the case on the merits as provided for under
the first paragraph of Section 8, Rule 40 of the
Rules of Court, shall, after the issues have been
joined, issue an Order referring the parties to CAM,
if the case was not previously referred to CAM,
subject to the payment of the appropriate docket
and mediation fees. If CAM fails, the court shall
proceed in accordance with Part C, Chapter 2 of
these Guidelines.
For cases falling under the second paragraph of
Sec. 8, Rule 40 of the Rules of Court, the RTC
judge shall proceed to conduct JDR in accordance
with Part C, Chapter 2 of these Guidelines.
What happens if the case is dismissed for lack of
jurisdiction?
If the RTC Judge affirms the dismissal on appeal:
RTC Judge having jurisdiction shall issue and
Order referring the parties to CAM, if the case
was not previously referred to CAM.
If CAM fails, the court shall proceed in
accordance with Part C, Chapter 2 of these
Guidelines.
Section 8. Judgments in JDRA. - Judgments
approving the compromise agreements of the
parties, through the efforts of the RTC Judge as a
mediator or conciliator, shall state that the
Judgments were achieved through JDRA.
Judgments in JDRA shall also state that the judgments
were achieved through JDRA.
Chapter 4. Cases with Applications for
Provisional
Remedies and/or Other Reliefs
Section 1. Cases with Applications for
Provisional Remedies - In cases with applications
for the issuance of a temporary restraining order,
writ of preliminary injunction, or other provisional
remedies, including cases when the Judge opts to
conduct hearing on a prayer for the issuance of writ
of replevin or writ of attachment, such applications
shall first be resolved by the Judge before referral to
CAM.

What applications must be first resolved by the
Judge before referral to CAM?
A: If applying for issuance of TRO, Writ of Preliminary
Injunction, or other provisional remedies,
including cases when the Judge opts to conduct
hearing when a party prays for the issuance of writ of
replevin or writ of attachment,
Section 2. Cases with Applications for Other
Reliefs. - All other incidents or motions filed before
the Pre-Trial/Preliminary Conference shall, likewise,
be resolved by the Judge before referral to CAM.
In these instances, if CAM fails, the case shall be
referred to another Judge for JDR if the Judge is
convinced that settlement is still possible. After the
termination of JDR proceedings, the case shall be
returned to the referring Judge for appropriate
action.
What else must be resolved first by the Judge
before referral to CAM?
A: All other incidents or motions filed before the
Pre-Trial/Preliminary Conference
What happens if CAM fails?
A: If CAM fails, the case shall be referred to another
Judge for JDR, if the Judge is convinced that
settlement is still possible
Once JDR proceedings are terminated, what
happens to the case?
A: The case shall be returned to the referring Judge for
appropriate action.
Chapter 5. Final Provisions
Section 1. Repealing Clause. - All existing
guidelines on CAM and JDR inconsistent with these
new Guidelines are deemed amended or repealed.
Section 2. Posting and Circulation - These new
Guidelines on CAM and JDR shall be posted on the
bulletin boards in the halls of justice of all first- and
second-level courts and all offices of the Integrated
Bar of the Philippines, and in the websites of the
Supreme Court, OCA, and PHILJA.
The PMCO shall ensure that these new guidelines
Notes on Alternative Dispute Resolution | Cerbo, Embalsado, Garcia, and Tan | 2024 | Page 14
are circulated in all PMC Units nationwide.
New guidelines must be posted in:
- Bulletin boards in the halls of justice of all first
and second level courts;
- All offices of the IBP; and
- Websites of SC, OCA, and PHILJA
PMCO shall ensure circulation in all PMC Units
nationwide
Section 3. Effectivity Clause - These Guidelines
shall take effect on March 1, 2021, following its
publication in two (2) newspapers of general
circulation.
RA 7160 - LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE
CHAPTER VII
Katarungang Pambarangay
Section 399. Lupong Tagapamayapa. -
(a) There is hereby created in each barangay a
lupong tagapamayapa, hereinafter referred to as the
lupon, composed of the punong barangay, as
chairman and ten (10) to twenty (20) members. The
lupon shall be constituted every three (3) years in
the manner provided herein.
(b) 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.
(c) 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 punong barangay within the first
fifteen (15) days from the start of his term of office.
Such notice shall be posted in three (3) conspicuous
places in the barangay continuously for a period of
not less than three (3) weeks;
(d) The punong barangay, taking into consideration
any opposition to the proposed appointment or any
recommendations for appointment as may have
been made within the period of posting, shall within
ten (10) days thereafter, appoint as members
those whom he determines to be suitable therefor.
Appointments shall be in writing, signed by the
punong barangay, and attested to by the barangay
secretary.
(e) The list of appointed members shall be posted in
three (3) conspicuous places in the barangay for
 the entire duration of their term of office; and
(f) In barangays where majority of the inhabitants
are members of indigenous cultural communities,
local systems of settling disputes through their
councils of datus or elders shall be recognized
without prejudice to the applicable provisions of this
Code.
Composition of Lupong Tagapamayapa (Lupon):
- Punong barangay, as chairman
- Ten (10) to twenty (20) members.
The lupon shall be constituted every three (3) years in
the manner provided herein.
Qualifications of Lupon Members:
- 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.
Notice & Posting Requirement:
- include the names of proposed members who
have expressed their willingness to serve,
shall be prepared by the punong barangay
- within the first fifteen (15) days from the start
of his term of office
- Such notice shall be posted in three (3)
conspicuous places in the barangay
continuously for a period of not less than three
(3) weeks;
Section 400. Oath and Term of Office. - Upon
appointment, each lupon member shall take an oath
of office before the punong barangay. He shall
hold office until a new lupon is constituted on the
third year following his appointment unless sooner
terminated by resignation, transfer of residence or
place of work, or withdrawal of appointment by the
punong barangay with the concurrence of the
majority of all the members of the lupon.
Term of Office of Punong Barangay
- Until a new lupon is constituted on the third
year following his appointment
- UNLESS sooner terminated by resignation,
transfer of residence, or place of work, or
withdrawal of appointment
Section 401. Vacancies. - Should a vacancy occur
in the lupon for any cause, the punong barangay
shall immediately appoint a qualified person who
shall hold office only for the unexpired portion of
the term.
Notes on Alternative Dispute Resolution | Cerbo, Embalsado, Garcia, and Tan | 2024 | Page 15
Section 402. Functions of the Lupon. - The lupon
shall:
(a) Exercise administrative supervision over the
conciliation panels provided herein;
(b) 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; and
(c) Exercise such other powers and perform such
other duties and functions as may be prescribed
by law or ordinance.
Section 403. Secretary of the Lupon. - 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.
Duty of Secretary of the Lupon:
- Record the results of mediation proceedings
before the punong barangay
- Submit a report thereon to the proper city or
municipality courts
- Receive and keep records of proceedings
submitted by conciliation panels
Section 404. Pangkat ng Tagapagkasundo. -
(a) There shall be constituted for each dispute
brought before the lupon a conciliation panel to be
known as the pangkat ng tagapagkasundo,
hereinafter referred to as the pangkat, consisting of
three (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.
(b) The three (3) members constituting the pangkat
shall elect from among themselves the chairman
and the secretary. The secretary shall prepare the
minutes of the pangkat proceedings and submit a
copy duly attested to by the chairman to the lupon
secretary and to the proper city or 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 by law
otherwise declared confidential.
What is Pangkat ng Tagapagkasundo?
A: For each dispute brough before the lupon, there
shall be constituted a conciliation panel to be known
as Pangkat ng Tagapagkasundo (Pangkat)
How many members constitute a Pangkat?
A: Three (3) members who shall be chosen by the
parties to the dispute from the list of members of the
lupon.
SECTION 405. Vacancies in the Pangkat. –
Any vacancy in the pangkat shall be chosen by the
parties to the dispute from among the other lupon
members.
Should the parties fail to agree on a common
choice, the vacancy shall be filled by lot to be
drawn by the lupon chairman.
VACANCY
Chosen by the parties to the dispute
- from among the other lupon members
Failure to agree
- Filled by lot
- Drawn by the lupon chairman
Section 406. Character of Office and Service of
Lupon Members. -
(a) The lupon members, while in the performance of
their official duties or on the occasion thereof, shall
be deemed as persons in authority, as defined in the
Revised Penal Code.
(b) The lupon or pangkat members shall serve
without compensation, except as provided for in
Section 393 and without prejudice to incentives as
provided for in this Section and in Book IV of this
Code. The Department of the Interior and Local
Government shall provide for a system of granting
economic or other incentives to the lupon or pangkat
members who adequately demonstrate the ability to
judiciously and expeditiously resolve cases referred
to them. While in the performance of their duties, the
lupon or pangkat members, whether in public or
private employment, shall be deemed to be on
official time, and shall not suffer from any diminution
in compensation or allowance from said
employment by reason thereof.
LUPON MEMBERS
Notes on Alternative Dispute Resolution | Cerbo, Embalsado, Garcia, and Tan | 2024 | Page 16
- deemed as persons in authority,
- as defined in the Revised Penal Code.
- while in the performance of official
duties,
- Service without compensation
- Exception: as provided for under Sec
393
DILG shall provide for a system of granting economic
or other incentives to the lupon or pangkat members
- who adequately demonstrate the ability to
judiciously and expeditiously resolve cases
referred to them.
IMMUNITY (?)
While in the performance of their duties,
- the lupon or pangkat members,
- whether in public or private employment,
- shall be deemed to be on official time, and
shall not suffer from any diminution in
compensation or allowance from said
employment by reason thereof.
Section 407. Legal Advice on Matters Involving
Questions of Law. -
The provincial, city legal officer or prosecutor or the
municipal legal officer shall render legal advice on
matters involving questions of law to the punong
barangay or any lupon or pangkat member
whenever necessary in the exercise of his functions
in the administration of the katarungang
pambarangay.
Legal Advice on Matters Involving Questions of
Law.
- provincial, city legal officer or prosecutor or
- the municipal legal officer
- shall render legal advice on matters
involving questions of law to the
punong barangay or any lupon or
pangkat member
whenever necessary in the exercise of his functions
in the administration of the katarungang pambarangay.
Section 408. Subject Matter for Amicable
Settlement; Exception Thereto. - 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:
(a) Where one party is the government, or any
subdivision or instrumentality thereof;
(b) Where one party is a public officer or employee,
and the dispute relates to the performance of his
official functions;

(c) Offenses punishable by imprisonment exceeding
one (1) year or a fine exceeding Five thousand
pesos (P5,000.00);
(d) Offenses where there is no private offended
party;
(e) 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;
(f) 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;
(g) 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 this Code are
filed may, at any time before trial motu propio refer
the case to the lupon concerned for amicable
settlement.
General Rule: - 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
Requirement:
- Residing in the same city or municipality
agree to submit their differences to amicable
settlement by an appropriate lupon;
Section 409. Venue. -
(a) Disputes between persons actually residing in
the same barangay shall be brought for amicable
settlement before the lupon of said barangay.
(b) 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 complaint.
(c) 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.
(d) 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 punong barangay;
otherwise, the same shall be deemed waived. Any
legal question which may confront the punong
barangay in resolving objections to venue herein
referred to may be submitted to the Secretary of
Justice, or his duly designated representative,
whose ruling thereon shall be binding.
WHERE TO BRING DISPUTES

SITUATION VENUE
Exception:
Persons residing in Lupon of said barangay
(a) party is government, or instrumentality; same barangay

(b) public officer or employee - relative to the Residents of different barangay where the
performance of official functions; barangay, same city or respondent or any of the
municipality respondents actually
(c) Offenses punishable by imprisonment exceeding resides, at the election
one (1) year or a fine exceeding Five thousand pesos of the complaint.
(P5,000.00);

(d) Offenses where there is no private offended party; Disputes involving real barangay where the real
property or interest property or the larger
(e) dispute involves real properties located in therein portion thereof is
different cities or municipalities situated

XPN to XPN : unless the parties thereto agree arising at the workplace barangay where such
to submit their differences to amicable where the contending workplace or institution
settlement by an appropriate lupon; parties are employed or is located.
at the institution where
(f) Disputes involving parties who actually reside in such parties are enrolled
barangays of different cities or municipalities, for stud

XPN to XPN: except where such barangay brought in the raised in the mediation
units adjoin each other and the parties thereto Objections to venue proceedings before the

Notes on Alternative Dispute Resolution | Cerbo, Embalsado, Garcia, and Tan | 2024 | Page 17
 punong barangay;
otherwise, the same
shall be deemed waived.
NOTE:
Any legal question which may confront the punong
barangay in resolving objections to venue
● may be submitted to the Secretary of Justice,
or his duly designated representative, whose
ruling thereon shall be binding.
(e) Period to arrive at a settlement - The pangkat
shall arrive at a settlement or resolution of the
dispute within fifteen (15) days from the day it
convenes in accordance with this section. 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.
Procedure for Amicable Settlement

INITIATION
Section 410. Procedure for Amicable Settlement.
- Any individual who has cause of action
-
- Against another individual
- Involving any matter within the authority of the
(a) Who may initiate proceeding - Upon payment of
lupon
the appropriate filing fee, any individual who has a
- May complain - orally or in writting
cause of action against another individual involving
- To the lupon
any matter within the authority of the lupon may
- Upon payment of the filing fee
complain, orally or in writing, to the lupon chairman
of the barangay.
MEDIATION
(b) Mediation by lupon chairman - Upon receipt of
- Upon receipt of the complaint,
the complaint, the lupon chairman shall within the
- the lupon chairman shall within the next
next working day summon the respondent(s), with
working day summon the respondent(s), with
notice to the complainant(s) for them and their
notice
witnesses to appear before him for a mediation of
- to the complainant(s) for them and
their conflicting interests. If he fails in his mediation
- their witnesses
effort within fifteen (15) days from the first meeting
- to appear before him for a mediation of their
of the parties before him, he shall forthwith set a
conflicting interests.
date for the constitution of the pangkat in
accordance with the provisions of this Chapter.
- If he fails in his mediation effort within fifteen
(15) days from the first meeting of the parties
(c) Suspension of prescriptive period of offenses -
before him,
While the dispute is under mediation, conciliation, or
- he shall set a date for the constitution of the
arbitration, the prescriptive periods for offenses and
pangkat
cause of action under existing laws shall be
interrupted upon filing the complaint with the punong
SUSPENSION OF PRESCRIPTIVE PERIOD OF
barangay. The prescriptive periods shall resume
OFFENSES
upon receipt by the complainant of the complainant
- While the dispute is under mediation,
or the certificate of repudiation or of the certification
conciliation, or arbitration,
to file action issued by the lupon or pangkat
- the prescriptive periods for offenses and cause
secretary: Provided, however, That such interruption
of action under existing laws shall be
shall not exceed sixty (60) days from the filing of the
interrupted upon filing the complaint with
complaint with the punong barangay.
the punong barangay.
(d) Issuance of summons; hearing; grounds for
- The prescriptive periods shall resume upon
disqualification - The pangkat shall convene not
receipt by the complainant of the complainant
later than three (3) days from its constitution, on the
or the certificate of repudiation or of the
day and hour set by the lupon chairman, to hear
certification to file action issued by the lupon or
both parties and their witnesses, simplify issues,
pangkat secretary:
and explore all possibilities for amicable settlement.
For this purpose, the pangkat may issue summons
LIMIT ON INTERRUPTION
for the personal appearance of parties and
That such interruption shall not exceed sixty (60) days
witnesses before it. In the event that a party moves
from the filing of the complaint with the punong
to disqualify any member of the pangkat by reason
barangay.
of relationship, bias, interest, or any other similar
grounds discovered after the constitution of the
ISSUANCE OF SUMMONS HEARING GROUNDS
pangkat, the matter shall be resolved by the
FOR DISQUALIFICATION
affirmative vote of the majority of the pangkat whose
decision shall be final. Should disqualification be
The pangkat shall convene
decided upon, the resulting vacancy shall be filled
- not later than three (3) days from its
as herein provided for.
constitution,
Notes on Alternative Dispute Resolution | Cerbo, Embalsado, Garcia, and Tan | 2024 | Page 18
 - 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.

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 for.

PERIOD TO ARRIVE AT A SETTLEMENT

The pangkat shall arrive at a settlement or resolution
of the dispute
- within fifteen (15) days from the day it
convenes in accordance with this section.

EXTENDABLE
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.

Notes on Alternative Dispute Resolution | Cerbo, Embalsado, Garcia, and Tan | 2024 | Page 19

Section 411. Form of settlement. - All amicable
settlements shall be in writing, in a language or
dialect known to the parties, signed by them, and
attested to by the lupon chairman 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
known to them.
Form of settlement. -
All amicable settlements shall be
- in writing,
- in a language or dialect known to the parties,
- signed by them, and
- attested to by the lupon chairman 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 known to them.
Section 412. Conciliation. -
(a) 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 the pangkat, 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.
(b) Where Parties May Go Directly to Court. - The
parties may go directly to court in the following
instances:
(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
(4) Where the action may otherwise be barred by
the statute of limitations.
(c) Conciliation among members of indigenous
cultural communities. - The customs and traditions
of indigenous cultural communities shall be applied
in settling disputes between members of the cultural
communities.
Notes on Alternative Dispute Resolution | Cerbo, Embalsado, Garcia, and Tan | 2024 | Page 20
Conciliation
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 the pangkat,
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.
Where Parties May Go Directly to Court.
The parties may go directly to court in the following
instances:
1. Where the accused is under detention;
2. Where a person has 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
4. Where the action may otherwise be barred
by the statute of limitations.
Conciliation among members of indigenous
cultural communities.
The customs and traditions of indigenous cultural
communities shall be applied in settling disputes
between members of the cultural communities.
Section 413. Arbitration. -
(a) 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 five (5) days from the date thereof
for the same grounds and in accordance with the
procedure hereinafter prescribed. The arbitration
award shall be made after the lapse of the period for
repudiation and within ten (10) days thereafter.
(b) 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.
ARBITRATION
At any stage of the proceeding
The parties may, 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 five (5) days from the date thereof
- for the same grounds and
- in accordance with the procedure hereinafter
prescribed.
The arbitration award shall be made after the lapse of
the period for repudiation and
- within ten (10) days thereafter.
(b) 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.
Section 414. Proceedings Open to the Public;
Exception. - All proceedings for settlement shall be
public and informal: Provided, however, That the
lupon chairman or the pangkat chairman, as the
case may be, may motu proprio or upon request of a
party, exclude the public from the proceedings in the
interest of privacy, decency, or public morals.
Proceedings Open to the Public; Exception. -
All proceedings for settlement shall be public and
informal:
Provided, however, That the lupon chairman or the
pangkat chairman, as the case may be, may motu
proprio or upon request of a party, exclude the
public from the proceedings in the interest of privacy,
decency, or public morals.
Section 415. Appearance of Parties in Person. - In
all katarungang pambarangay 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.
Appearance of Parties in Person. -
In all katarungang pambarangay proceedings,
- the parties must appear in person
- without the assistance of counsel or
representative,
EXCEPTION
- minors and
- incompetents who may be assisted by their
next-of-kin who are not lawyers.
Notes on Alternative Dispute Resolution | Cerbo, Embalsado, Garcia, and Tan | 2024 | Page 21
Section 416. Effect of Amicable Settlement and
Arbitration Award. - The amicable settlement and
arbitration award shall have the force and effect of a
final judgment of a court upon the expiration of ten
(10) days 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 or municipal court.
However, this provision shall not apply to court
cases settled by the lupon under the last paragraph
of Section 408 of this Code, in which case the
compromise or the pangkat chairman shall be
submitted to the court and upon approval thereof,
have the force and effect of a judgment of said
court.
Effect of Amicable Settlement and Arbitration
Award. -
The amicable settlement and arbitration award
- shall have the force and effect of a final
judgment of a court
- upon the expiration of ten (10) days 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 or municipal court.
THIS shall not apply to court cases settled by the
lupon under the last paragraph of Section 408,
Section 408 xxx
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 the case to the lupon
concerned for amicable settlement.
in which case the compromise or the pangkat
chairman shall be submitted to the court
- upon approval, have the force and effect of a
judgment of said court.
Section 417. Execution. - The amicable settlement
or arbitration award may be enforced by execution
by the lupon within six (6) months from the date of
the settlement. After the lapse of such time, the
settlement may be enforced by action in the
appropriate city or municipal court.
Execution. -
The amicable settlement or arbitration award
- may be enforced by execution
- by the lupon
- within six (6) months from the date of the
settlement.
After the lapse of such time,
- the settlement may be enforced by action in
the appropriate city or municipal court.
Section 418. Repudiation. - Any party to the dispute
may, within ten (10) days from the date of the
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 as hereinabove provided.
Repudiation. -
Any party to the dispute may,
- within ten (10) days
- from the date of the settlement,
repudiate the same
HOW?
By filing a statement
- with the lupon chairman
- 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 as
hereinabove provided.
Section 420. Power to Administer Oaths. - The
punong barangay, as chairman of the lupong
tagapamayapa, and the members of the pangkat
are hereby authorized to administer oaths in
connection with any matter relating to all
proceedings in the implementation of the
katarungang pambarangay.
Power to Administer Oaths. -
The punong barangay,
- as chairman of the lupong
tagapamayapa,
and the members of the pangkat
- are authorized to administer oaths in
connection with any matter relating to all
proceedings in the implementation of the
katarungang pambarangay.
Section 421. Administration; Rules and Regulations.
- The city or municipal mayor, as the case may be,
shall see to the efficient and effective
implementation and administration of the
katarungang pambarangay. The Secretary of Justice
shall promulgate the rules and regulations
necessary to implement this Chapter.

Section 419. Transmittal of Settlement and ADMINISTRATION

Arbitration. - Award to the Court. - The secretary of
the lupon shall transmit the settlement or the The city or municipal mayor,
arbitration award to the appropriate city or municipal - as the case may be,
court within five (5) days from the date of the award - shall see to the
or from the lapse of the ten-day period repudiating - efficient and effective implementation and
the settlement and shall furnish copies thereof to administration of the katarungang
each of the parties to the settlement and the lupon pambarangay.
chairman.
The Secretary of Justice shall promulgate the rules
and regulations necessary to implement this Chapter.
Transmittal of Settlement and Arbitration. - Award
to the Court. -

The secretary of the lupon
- shall transmit the settlement or the arbitration
award
- to the appropriate city or municipal court
- within five (5) days
- from the date of the award or
- from the lapse of the ten-day period
repudiating the settlement and
- shall furnish copies thereof to
- each of the parties to the settlement
and
- the lupon chairman.
Section 422. Appropriations. - Such amount as may
be necessary for the effective implementation of the
katarungang pambarangay shall be provided for in
the annual budget of the city or municipality
concerned.
APPROPRIATIONS
Amount as necessary
- for the effective implementation of the
katarungang pambarangay
- shall be provided for in the annual budget
of the city or municipality concerned.

Notes on Alternative Dispute Resolution | Cerbo, Embalsado, Garcia, and Tan | 2024 | Page 22
 CASES
BAÑARES VS. BALISING
GR 132624
SUMMARY: The Court rules that the order of
dismissal in the case of Bañares II v. Balising had
attained finality, and clarifies that the non-referral of
a case for barangay conciliation is not a
jurisdictional requirement, resulting in the dismissal
of the criminal cases without prejudice.
FACTS:
Petitioners Fidel M. Bañares II, Lilia C. Valeriano,
Edgar M. Bañares, Emilia Gatchialian and Fidel
Besarino were the accused in sixteen criminal cases
for estafa filed by the private respondents.
After the petitioners were arraigned and entered
their plea of not guilty, they filed a Motion to Dismiss
the aforementioned cases on the ground that the
filing of the same was premature, in view of the
failure of the parties to undergo conciliation
proceedings before the Lupong Tagapamayapa of
Barangay Dalig, Antipolo, Rizal. Petitioners averred
that since they lived in the same barangay as
private respondents, and the amount involved in
each of the cases did not exceed Two Hundred
Pesos (P200.00), the said cases were required
under Section 412 in relation to Section 408 of the
Local Government Code of 1991 and Section 18 of
the 1991 Revised Rule on Summary Procedure to
be referred to the Lupong Tagapamayapa or
Pangkat ng Tagapagkasundo of the barangay
concerned for conciliation proceedings before being
filed in court.
The municipal trial court issued an Order denying
petitioners' motion to dismiss on the ground that
they failed to seasonably invoke the non-referral of
the cases to the Lupong Tagapamayapa or Pangkat
ng Tagapagkasundo. It added that such failure to
invoke non-referral of the case to the Lupon
amounted to a waiver by petitioners of the right to
use the said ground as basis for dismissing the
cases.
Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration of the
aforementioned Order, claiming that nowhere in the
Revised Rules of Court is it stated that the ground of
prematurity shall be deemed waived if not raised
seasonably in a motion to dismiss.
The municipal trial court issued an Order dismissing
the sixteen criminal cases against petitioners
without prejudice, pursuant to Section 18 of the
1991 Revised Rule on Summary Procedure.
More than two months later, private respondents
through counsel, filed a motion to revive the
abovementioned criminal cases against petitioners,
stating that the requirement of referral to the Lupon
for conciliation had already been complied with.
Attached to the motion was a Certification from the
Notes on Alternative Dispute Resolution | Cerbo, Embalsado, Garcia, and Tan | 2024 | Page 23
Lupong Tagapamayapa of Barangay Dalig, Antipolo,
Rizal stating that the parties appeared before said
body regarding the charges of estafa filed by private
respondents against petitioners but they failed to
reach an amicable settlement with respect thereto.
Petitioners filed a comment and opposition to motion
to revive claiming that the Order of the municipal
trial court dismissing the cases had long become
final and executory; hence, private respondents
should have re-filed the cases instead of filing a
motion to revive.
The municipal trial court issued an Order granting
private respondents' motion to revive. Petitioners
filed a motion for reconsideration of the
aforementioned Order which was denied by the
municipal trial court.
Petitioners thereafter filed with the Regional Trial
Court of Antipolo, Rizal, a petition for certiorari,
injunction and prohibition assailing the Order of the
municipal trial court. They claimed that the said
Order dismissing the criminal cases against them
had long become final and executory considering
that the prosecution did not file any motion for
reconsideration of said Order. In response thereto,
private respondents filed their Comment, arguing
that the motion to revive the said cases was in
accordance with law, particularly Section 18 of the
Revised Rule on Summary Procedure.
After the parties submitted additional pleadings to
support their respective contentions, the regional
trial court rendered the assailed decision denying
the petition for certiorari, injunction and prohibition,
stating that since the dismissal of said cases was
without prejudice, the questioned order has not
attained finality at all.
The regional trial court, likewise, denied petitioners'
motion for reconsideration of the aforementioned
decision for lack of merit.
ISSUE:
WON non-referral of a case for barangay
conciliation is a jurisdictional requirement? NO.
RULING:
Equally erroneous is private respondents' contention
that the rules regarding finality of judgments under
the Revised Rules of Court do not apply to cases
covered by the 1991 Revised Rule on Summary
Procedure. Private respondents claim that Section
18 of the 1991 Revised Rule on Summary
Procedure allows the revival of cases that were
dismissed for failure to submit the same to
conciliation at the barangay level, as required under
Section 412 in relation to Section 408 of the Local
Government Code.
Section 18 of 1991 Rules of Summary Procedure
states:
Referral to Lupon.·Cases requiring referral to the
Lupon for conciliation under the provisions of
Presidential Decree No. 1508 where there is no
showing of compliance with such requirement, shall
be dismissed without prejudice, and may be revived
only after such requirement shall have been
complied’ with. This provision shall not apply to
criminal cases where the accused was arrested
without a warrant.
There is nothing in the aforecited provision which
supports private respondents' view. Section 18
merely states that when a case covered by the 1991
Revised Rule on Summary Procedure is dismissed
without prejudice for non-referral of the issues to the
Lupon, the same may be revived only after the
dispute subject of the dismissed case is submitted
to barangay conciliation as required under the Local
Government Code. There is no declaration to the
effect that said case may be revived by mere motion
even after the fifteen-day period within which to
appeal or to file a motion for reconsideration has
lapsed.
It is but logical to infer that the foregoing principle
also applies to cases subject to summary procedure
especially since the objective of the Rule governing
the same is precisely to settle these cases
expeditiously. To construe Section 18 thereof as
allowing the revival of dismissed cases by mere
motion even after the lapse of the period for
appealing the same would prevent the courts from
settling justiciable controversies with finality, thereby
undermining the stability of our judicial system.
AGBAYANI VS. CA
GR 183623
SUMMARY: A court stenographer files a complaint
for grave oral defamation against a fellow court
employee, but the Supreme Court denies her
petition for review, upholding the dismissal of the
case due to non-compliance with the barangay
conciliation procedure.
FACTS:
Agbayani and Genabe were both employees of the
(RTC), Branch 275 of Las Piñas City, working as
Court Stenographer and Legal Researcher II,
respectively.
Agbayani filed a criminal complaint for grave oral
defamation against Genabe before the Office of the
City Prosecutor of Las Piñas City, for allegedly
uttering defamatory statements against her, in the
presence of their fellow court employees and while
she was going about her usual duties at work.
The Office of the City Prosecutor of Las Piñas City
found probable cause for the filing of the Information
for grave oral defamation against Genabe.
Notes on Alternative Dispute Resolution | Cerbo, Embalsado, Garcia, and Tan | 2024 | Page 24
However, upon a petition for review filed by Genabe,
the DOJ Undersecretary found that the subject
utterances of respondent constitute only slight oral
defamation since the allegations of petitioner
provides that the remarks were uttered by
respondent in the heat of anger. But the case should
nonetheless be dismissed because the
complaint-affidavit failed to show that the instant
case was previously referred to the barangay for
conciliation in compliance with Sections 408 and
409, paragraph (d), of the Local Government Code.
Consequently, Agbayani filed a petition for certiorari
with the CA which dismissed the petition after
finding no grave abuse of discretion on the part of
the DOJ.
ISSUE:
WON THE CASE SHOULD BE DISMISSED ON
THE GROUND OF NON-COMPLIANCE WITH THE
PROVISIONS OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT
CODE OF 1991, ON THE KATARUNGANG
PAMBARANGAY CONCILIATION PROCEDURE.
YES.
RULING:
Agbayani’s complaint should have undergone the
mandatory barangay conciliation for possible
amicable settlement with respondent Genabe,
pursuant to Sections 408 and 409 of Republic Act
No. 7160 or the Local Government Code of 1991
which provide:
Sec. 408. Subject Matter for Amicable Settlement;
Exception thereto. – 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: x x x
Sec. 409. Venue. x x x (d) Those arising at the
workplace where the contending parties are
employed or x x x shall be brought in the barangay
where such workplace or institution is located.
Undeniably, both petitioner Agbayani and
respondent Genabe are residents of Las Piñas City
and both work at the RTC, and the incident which is
the subject matter of the case happened in their
workplace
Also, Administrative Circular No. 14-93, issued by
the Supreme Court on July 15, 1993 states that:
xxx
I. All disputes 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, except in the following disputes:
[6] Offenses for which the law prescribes a
maximum penalty of imprisonment exceeding one
[1] year or a fine of over five thousand pesos
([₱]5,000.00);
xxx
The compulsory process of arbitration is a
pre-condition for the filing of the complaint in court.
Where the complaint (a) did not state that it is one of
excepted cases, or (b) it did not allege prior
availment of said conciliation process, or (c) did not
have a certification that no conciliation had been
reached by the parties, the case should be
dismissed.
Here, petitioner Agbayani failed to show that the
instant case is not one of the exceptions
enumerated above. Neither has she shown that the
oral defamation caused on her was so grave as to
merit a penalty of more than one year.
Oral defamation under Article 358 of the Revised
Penal Code, as amended, is penalized as follows:
"Article 358. Slander. – Oral defamation shall be
punished by arresto mayor in its maximum period to
prision correccional in its minimum period if it is of a
serious and insulting nature; otherwise, the penalty
shall be arresto menor or a fine not exceeding 200
pesos."
Apparently, the DOJ found probable cause only for
slight oral defamation.
LUMBUAN VS. RONQUILLO
GR 155713
DOCTRINE: The appellate court ruled that when a
complaint is prematurely instituted, as when the
mandatory mediation and conciliation in the
barangay level had not been complied with, the
court should dismiss the case and not just remand
the records to the court of origin so that the parties
may go through the prerequisite proceedings.
FACTS: Petitioner Milagros G. Lumbuan is the
registered owner of a lot in Gagalangin, Tondo,
Manila. On February 20, 1995, she leased it to
respondent Alfredo A. Ronquillo for a period of three
years. They agreed that the leased premises will be
used exclusively for the respondent’s fastfood
business, unless any other use is given, with the
petitioner’s prior written consent. While the
respondent at the start operated a fastfood
business, he later used the premises as residence
without the petitioner’s prior written consent. He also
failed to pay the 10% annual increase in rent of
P500/month starting 1996 and P1,000/month in
1997 to the present. Despite repeated verbal and
written demands, the respondent refused to pay the
arrears and vacate the leased premises.
Petitioner filed against the respondent an action for
Unlawful Detainer. Before the MeTC could receive
the respondent’s Answer, the petitioner filed a
Motion for Summary Judgment. Acting upon this
motion, the MeTC rendered a decision asking
respondent to vacate the premises. Upon elevation,
Notes on Alternative Dispute Resolution | Cerbo, Embalsado, Garcia, and Tan | 2024 | Page 25
RTC directed the parties to go back to the Lupon
Chairman or Punong Barangay for further
proceedings and to comply strictly with the condition
that should the parties fail to reach an amicable
settlement, the entire records of the case will be
remanded to MeTC of Manila for it to decide the
case anew. On petition for review with the CA, it
ruled that when a complaint is prematurely
instituted, as when the mandatory mediation and
conciliation in the barangay level had not been
complied with, the court should dismiss the case
and not just remand the records to the court of origin
so that the parties may go through the prerequisite
proceedings.
ISSUE: Whether the court of appeals gravely erred
in dismissing the complaint for the alleged failure of
the parties to comply with the mandatory mediation
and conciliation proceedings in the barangay level.
YES.
RULING: The CA erred and it should proceed with
the appeal.
The primordial objective of the Katarungang
Pambarangay Rules, is to reduce the number of
court litigations and prevent the deterioration of the
quality of justice which has been brought about by
the indiscriminate filing of cases in the courts. To
attain this objective, Section 412(a) of Republic Act
No. 7160 requires the parties to undergo a
conciliation process before the Lupon Chairman or
the Pangkat as a precondition to filing a complaint in
court.
Here, the Lupon/Pangkat Chairman and
Lupon/Pangkat Secretary signed the Certificate to
File Action stating that no settlement was reached
by the parties. While admittedly no pangkat was
constituted, it was 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, in our
mind, there was substantial compliance with the law.
It is noteworthy that under the aforequoted
provision, the confrontation before the Lupon
Chairman or the pangkat is sufficient compliance
with the precondition 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, as well as the circumstances
obtaining in and peculiar to the case. On this score,
it is significant that the Barangay Chairman or
Punong Barangay is herself the Chairman of the
Lupon under the Local Government Code.
BORROMEO VS. POGOY
GR L-63277
DOCTRINE: Under Section 4(a) of PD 1508, referral
of a dispute to the Barangay Lupon is required only
where the parties thereto are "individuals." An
"individual" means "a single human being as
contrasted with a social group or institution."
Obviously, the law applies only to cases involving
natural persons, and not where any of the parties is
a juridical person such as a corporation, partnership,
corporation sole, testate or intestate, estate, etc.
FACTS: The intestate estate of the late Vito
Borromeo is the owner of a building bearing the
deceased’s name, located at F. Ramos St., Cebu
City. Said building has been leased and occupied by
petitioner Petra Vda. de Borromeo at a monthly
rental of P500.00 payable in advance within the first
five days of the month.
On August 28, 1982, private respondent Atty.
Ricardo Reyes, administrator of the estate and a
resident of Cebu City, served upon petitioner a letter
demanding that she pay the overdue rentals
corresponding to the period from March to
September 1982, and thereafter to vacate the
premises. As petitioner failed to do so, Atty. Reyes
instituted on September 16, 1982 an ejectment case
against the former in the Municipal Trial Court of
Cebu City.
Petitioner moved to dismiss the case, pointing out
that the court could not exercise jurisdiction over the
case for failure of respondent Atty. Reyes to refer
the dispute to the Barangay Court, as required by
PD No. 1508, otherwise known as Katarungang
Pambarangay Law. The judge denied the motion to
dismiss. Petitioner filed a Petition for Certiorari with
the Honorable Court.
ISSUE: Whether or not the Judge erred in taking
cognizance of the case despite failure to refer such
to the Barangay Lupon for conciliation. NO.
RULING: The instant petition should be dismissed.
Under Section 4(a) of PD No. 1508, referral of a
dispute to the Barangay Lupon is required only
where the parties thereto are "individuals." An
"individual" means "a single human being as
contrasted with a social group or institution."
Obviously, the law applies only to cases involving
natural persons, and not where any of the parties is
a juridical person such as a corporation, partnership,
corporation sole, testate or intestate, estate, etc.
In Civil Case No. R-23915, plaintiff Ricardo Reyes is
a mere nominal party who is suing in behalf of the
Intestate Estate of Vito Borromeo. While it is true
that Section 3, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court allows
the administrator of an estate to sue or be sued
without joining the party for whose benefit the action
is presented or defended, it is indisputable that the
real party in interest in Civil Case No. R-23915 is the
intestate estate under administration. Since the said
estate is a juridical person plaintiff administrator may
file the complaint directly in court, without the same
Notes on Alternative Dispute Resolution | Cerbo, Embalsado, Garcia, and Tan | 2024 | Page 26
being coursed to the Barangay Lupon for arbitration.
QUIROS VS. ARJONA
GR 158901
FACTS:
● Petitioners Proceso Quiros and Leonarda
Villegas filed with the office of the Brgy.
Captain of Labney, San Jacinto,
Pangasinan, a complaint for recovery of
ownership and possession of a parcel of
land against their uncle Marcelo Arjona (one
of the respondents). The subject land was
their lawful share/inheritance from their late
grandmother.
● The parties eventually reached an amicable
settlement. By reason thereof, Arjona
executed a document/agreement which
states that he will give to petitioners the 1
hectare land he inherited from his mother.
Another document/agreement was executed
by a Jose Banda which states that the land
he is cultivating/tilling belongs to the Arjona
family, and that he will voluntarily surrender
said land if ever the petitioners would get it
from him.
● Petitioners filed a complaint with the MCTC
for the execution of the compromise
agreement, which was denied because the
subject property cannot be determined with
certainty.
● On appeal, the RTC reversed the decision.
● Respondents appealed to the CA which
reversed the decision of the trial court.
ISSUE: Whether the amicable settlement between
the parties is valid and enforceable (NO)
RULING: The Court held that the general rule
regarding the finality of amicable settlements (which
is: “where no repudiation was made during the
10-day period, such settlement attains the status of
finality and the courts have the ministerial duty to
implement and enforce it”) admits certain
exceptions; such as those special and exceptional
circumstances or facts that may have transpired
after the finality of judgment and which would render
its execution unjust. In the case at bar, the ends of
justice would be frustrated if a writ of execution is
issued considering the uncertainty of the object of
the agreement. Perusal of the 2 documents of the
amicable settlement show that the lands referred to
were different from each other. Hence, no writ of
execution could be issued for failure to determine
with certainty what parcel of land respondent
intended to convey.
An amicable settlement partakes of the nature of a
contract. Thus, it is subject to the same legal
provisions providing for the validity, enforcement,
rescission or annulment of ordinary contracts –i.e.
there is a need to ascertain whether said documents
sufficiently complied with the requisites of validity in
accordance with Art. 1318, NCC.
● CONSENT: There is no question that there
was meeting of the minds between the
contracting parties.
● OBJECT: The object is a 1-hectare parcel of
land that the petitioners inherited from their
grandmother.
● CAUSE: The cause of the contract is the
delivery of petitioners’ share in the
inheritance.
NOTE: The inability to identify the land did not
negate the principal object of the contract. Such
error may be corrected by reformation of the
instrument and not its nullification.
Reformation is a remedy in equity whereby a written
instrument is made or construed so as to express or
conform to the real intention of the parties where
some error or mistake has been committed. In
granting reformation, the remedy in equity is not
making a new contract for the parties, but
establishing and perpetuating the real contract
between the parties which, under the technical rules
of law, could not be enforced but for such
reformation.
In order that an action for reformation of instrument
as provided in Article 1359 of the Civil Code may
prosper, the following requisites must concur: (1)
there must have been a meeting of the minds of the
parties to the contract; (2) the instrument does not
express the true intention of the parties; and (3) the
failure of the instrument to express the true intention
of the parties is due to mistake, fraud, inequitable
conduct or accident.
CHAVEZ VS. TRILLANA GR 159411 -
RESCISSION OF COMPROMISE
FACTS: In October 1994, petitioner Teodoro
Chavez and respondent Jacinto Trillana entered into
a contract of lease whereby the former leased to the
latter his fishpond at Sitio Pariahan, Taliptip,
Bulacan, Bulacan, for a term of six (6) years
commencing from October 23, 1994 to October 23,
2000. The rental for the whole term was two million
two hundred forty thousand (P2,240,000.00) pesos,
of which one million (P1,000,000.00) pesos was to
be paid upon signing of the contract. The balance
was payable as follows:
b. That, after six (6) months and/or, on or before one
(1) year from the date of signing this contract, the
amount of THREE HUNDRED FORTY-FOUR
THOUSAND (P344,000.00) pesos shall be paid on
April 23, 1995 and/or, on or before October 23, 1995
shall be paid by the LESSEE to the LESSOR.
c. That, the LESSEE, shall pay the amount of FOUR
Notes on Alternative Dispute Resolution | Cerbo, Embalsado, Garcia, and Tan | 2024 | Page 27
HUNDRED FORTY-EIGHT THOUSAND
(P448,000.00) pesos x x x to the LESSOR on April
23, 1997 and/or, on or before October 23, 1997, and
on April 23, 1998 and/or, on or before October 23,
1998 the amount of FOUR HUNDRED
FORTY-EIGHT THOUSAND (P448,000.00) pesos x
x x.
Paragraph 5 of the contract further provided that
respondent shall undertake all construction and
preservation of improvements in the fishpond that
may be destroyed during the period of the lease, at
his expense, without reimbursement from petitioner.
In August 1996, a powerful typhoon hit the country
which damaged the subject fishpond. Respondent
did not immediately undertake the necessary repairs
as the water level was still high. Three (3) weeks
later, respondent was informed by a barangay
councilor that major repairs were being undertaken
in the fishpond with the use of a crane. Respondent
found out that the repairs were at the instance of
petitioner who had grown impatient with his delay in
commencing the work.
In September 1996, respondent filed a complaint
before the Office of the Barangay Captain of Taliptip,
Bulacan, Bulacan. He complained about the
unauthorized repairs undertaken by petitioner, the
ouster of his personnel from the leased premises
and its unlawful taking by petitioner despite their
valid and subsisting lease contract. After conciliation
proceedings, an agreement was reached, viz.:
KASUNDUAN
Napagkasunduan ngayong araw na to ika-17 ng
Setyembre ng nagpabuwis Teodoro Chavez at
bumubuwis na si G. Jay Trillana na ibabalik ni G.
Chavez ang halagang P150,000.00 kay G. Trillana
bilang sukli sa natitirang panahon ng buwisan.
Ngunit kung maibibigay ni G. Chavez ang halagang
P100,000.00 bago sumapit o pagsapit ng ika-23 ng
Setyembre, taong kasalukuyan, to ay
nangangahulugan ng buong kabayaran at hindi
P150,000.00.
Kung sakali at hindi maibigay ang P100,000.00 ang
magiging kabayaran ay mananatiling P150,000.00
na may paraan ng pagbabayad ng sumusunod:
Ang P50,000.00 ay ibibigay bago sumapit o
pagsapit ng ika-31 ng Oktubre 1996 at ang
balanseng P100,000.00 ay ibibigay sa loob ng isang
taon subalit magbibigay ng promissory note si G.
Chavez at kung mabubuwisang ang kanyang
palaisdaan ay ibibigay lahat ni G. Chavez ang
buong P150,000.00 sa lalong madaling panahon.

Alleging non-compliance by petitioner with their
lease contract and the foregoing Kasunduan,
respondent filed a complaint on February 7, 1997
against petitioner before the RTC of Valenzuela City,
docketed as Civil Case No. 5139-V-97. Respondent
prayed that the following amounts be awarded him,
viz.: (a) P300,000.00 as reimbursement for rentals
of the leased premises corresponding to the
unexpired portion of the lease contract; (b)
P500,000.00 as unrealized profits; (c) P200,000.00
as moral damages; (d) P200,000.00 as exemplary
damages; and, (e) P100,000.00 as attorneys fees
plus P1,000.00 for each court appearance of
respondents counsel.
Petitioner filed his answer but failed to submit the
required pretrial brief and to attend the pretrial
conference. On October 21, 1997, respondent was
allowed to present his evidence ex-parte before the
Acting Branch Clerk of Court. On the basis thereof,
a decision was rendered on December 15, 1997 in
favor of respondent.
Petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals which
modified the decision of the trial court by deleting
the award of P500,000.00 for unrealized profits for
lack of basis, and by reducing the award for
attorneys fees to P50,000.00.[7] Petitioners motion
for reconsideration was denied. Hence, this petition
for review.
Petitioner contends that the Court of Appeals erred
in ruling that the RTC of Valenzuela City had
jurisdiction over the action filed by respondent
considering that the subject matter thereof, his
alleged violation of the lease contract with
respondent, was already amicably settled before the
Office of the Barangay Captain of Taliptip, Bulacan,
Bulacan. Petitioner argued that respondent
should have followed the procedure for
enforcement of the amicable settlement as
provided for in the Revised Katarungang
Pambarangay Law. Assuming arguendo that the
RTC had jurisdiction, it cannot award more than the
amount stipulated in the Kasunduan which is
P150,000.00. In any event, no factual or legal basis
existed for the reimbursement of alleged advance
rentals for the unexpired portion of the lease
contract as well as for moral and exemplary
damages, and attorneys fees.
Indeed, the Revised Katarungang Pambarangay
Law[8] provides that an amicable settlement
reached after barangay conciliation proceedings has
Notes on Alternative Dispute Resolution | Cerbo, Embalsado, Garcia, and Tan | 2024 | Page 28
the force and effect of a final judgment of a court if
not repudiated or a petition to nullify the same is
filed before the proper city or municipal court within
ten (10) days from its date. It further provides that
the settlement may be enforced by execution by the
lupong tagapamayapa within six (6) months from its
date, or by action in the appropriate city or municipal
court, if beyond the six-month period. This special
provision follows the general precept enunciated in
Article 2037 of the Civil Code, viz.:
A compromise has upon the parties the effect and
authority of res judicata; but there shall be no
execution except in compliance with a judicial
compromise.
Thus, we have held that a compromise
agreement which is not contrary to law, public
order, public policy, morals or good customs is
a valid contract which is the law between the
parties themselves. It has upon them the effect
and authority of res judicata even if not judicially
approved, and cannot be lightly set aside or
disturbed except for vices of consent and
forgery.
However, in Heirs of Zari, et al. v. Santos, we
clarified that the broad precept enunciated in Art.
2037 is qualified by Art. 2041 of the same Code,
which provides:
If one of the parties fails or refuses to abide by the
compromise, the other party may either enforce the
compromise or regard it as rescinded and insist
upon his original demand.
We explained, viz:
[B]efore the onset of the new Civil Code, there was
no right to rescind compromise agreements. Where
a party violated the terms of a compromise
agreement, the only recourse open to the other
party was to enforce the terms thereof.
When the new Civil Code came into being, its Article
2041 x x x created for the first time the right of
rescission. That provision gives to the aggrieved
party the right to either enforce the compromise or
regard it as rescinded and insist upon his original
demand. Article 2041 should obviously be deemed
to qualify the broad precept enunciated in Article
2037 that [a] compromise has upon the parties the
effect and authority of res judicata. (underscoring
ours)
In exercising the second option under Art. 2041, the
aggrieved party may, if he chooses, bring the suit
contemplated or involved in his original demand, as
if there had never been any compromise agreement,
without bringing an action for rescission. This is
because he may regard the compromise as already
rescinded by the breach thereof of the other party.
Thus, in Morales v. National Labor Relations
Commission we upheld the National Labor Relations
Commission when it heeded the original demand of
four (4) workers for reinstatement upon their
employers failure to comply with its obligation to pay
their monetary benefits within the period prescribed
under the amicable settlement. We reiterated the
rule that the aggrieved party may either:
(1) enforce the compromise by a writ of execution,
or
(2) regard it as rescinded and so insist upon his
original demand upon the other party's failure or
refusal to abide by the compromise.
In the case at bar, the Revised Katarungang
Pambarangay Law provides for a two-tiered mode of
enforcement of an amicable settlement, to wit: (a) by
execution by the Punong Barangay which is
quasi-judicial and summary in nature on mere
motion of the party entitled thereto; and (b) an action
in regular form, which remedy is judicial. However,
the mode of enforcement does not rule out the right
of rescission under Art. 2041 of the Civil Code. The
availability of the right of rescission is apparent from
the wording of Sec. 417 itself which provides that
the amicable settlement may be enforced by
execution by the lupon within six (6) months from its
date or by action in the appropriate city or municipal
court, if beyond that period. The use of the word
may clearly makes the procedure provided in the
Revised Katarungang Pambarangay Law directory
or merely optional in nature.
Thus, although the Kasunduan executed by
petitioner and respondent before the Office of
the Barangay Captain had the force and effect of
a final judgment of a court, petitioners
non-compliance paved the way for the
application of Art. 2041 under which respondent
may either enforce the compromise, following
the procedure laid out in the Revised
Katarungang Pambarangay Law, or regard it as
rescinded and insist upon his original demand.
Respondent chose the latter option when he
instituted Civil Case No. 5139-V-97 for recovery of
unrealized profits and reimbursement of advance
rentals, moral and exemplary damages, and
attorneys fees. Respondent was not limited to
claiming P150,000.00 because although he agreed
to the amount in the Kasunduan, it is axiomatic that
a compromise settlement is not an admission of
liability but merely a recognition that there is a
dispute and an impending litigation which the parties
Notes on Alternative Dispute Resolution | Cerbo, Embalsado, Garcia, and Tan | 2024 | Page 29
hope to prevent by making reciprocal concessions,
adjusting their respective positions in the hope of
gaining balanced by the danger of losing. Under the
Kasunduan, respondent was only required to
execute a waiver of all possible claims arising from
the lease contract if petitioner fully complies with his
obligations thereunder. It is undisputed that herein
petitioner did not.
LCFEA VS. NLRC GR 156225
With respect to agreement reached by parties
FACTS:
On October 8, 1992, the Letran Calamba Faculty
and Employees Association filed with NLRC a
Complaint against Colegio de San Juan de Letran,
Calamba, Inc. for collection of various monetary
claims due its members alleging that
● Respondent has not paid the wage
increases required by Wage Order No. 5 to
its employees who qualify thereunder.
ISSUE: WHETHER OR NOT IT THERE WAS
FAILURE TO PAY/CONFORM WITH WAGE
ORDER NO. 5.
RULING: YES
With respect to the alleged non-payment of benefits
under Wage Order No. 5, this Office is convinced
that after the lapse of the one-year period of
exemption from compliance with Wage Order No. 5,
which exemption was granted by then Labor
Minister Blas Ople, the School settled its
obligations to its employees, conformably with
the agreement reached during the
management-employees meeting.
The Union has presented no evidence that the
settlement reached during the meeting was the
result of coercion.
Indeed, what is significant is that the agreement was
signed by Mr. Porferio Ferrer, then Faculty
President and an officer of the Union.
Moreover, the samples from the payroll journal of
the School, identified and offered in evidence in
these cases shows that the School paid its
employees the benefits under Wage Order No. 5
(and even Wage Order No. 6) beginning June 16,
1985.
Under the circumstances, therefore, the claim of the
Union on this point must fail.
1. Basis of the 13th-month pay computation
The Revised Implementing Guidelines of the
13th-Month Pay Law (P.D. 851, as amended)
provides that an employee shall be entitled to not
less than 1/12 of the total basic salary earned within
a calendar year for the purpose of computing such
entitlement. The basic wage of an employee shall
include:
"x x x all remunerations or earnings paid by his
employer for services rendered but do not include
allowances or monetary benefits which are not
considered or integrated as part of the regular or
basic salary, such as the cash equivalent of unused
vacation and sick leave credits, overtime, premium,
night differential and holiday pay, and cost-of-living
allowances. However, these salary-related benefits
should be included as part of the basic salary in the
computation of the 13th month pay if by individual
or collective agreement, company practice or
policy, the same are treated as part of the basic
salary of the employees."
GALUBA VS. SPS LAURETA
GR 71091
FACTS:
In a quitclaim and waiver Sps Laureta ceded to
Galuba all their rights and interests over a house
and lot located in Quezon Hill, Baguio City for
P70,000. Petitioner paid the Lauretas P50,000 with
the balance payable later.
When P18,000 of the balance remained unpaid, the
parties brought the matter before the barangay
captain of Victoria Village in Baguio City. The parties
entered into an amicable settlement whereby they
agreed that the P18,000 would be paid in monthly
installments starting April, 1984 and that
non-compliance therewith would "mean
execution in accordance with the Barangay
Law."
A month later, Galuba discovered that the house he
had bought was encroaching on the adjoining lot,
and the owner was demanding payment for such
encroachment, and that there were arrears on
electric bills and taxes amounting to P6,117.
Consequently,, he filed in the office of the barangay
captain of Victoria Village an unsworn complaint for
the annulment of the amicable settlement. He
alleged that his consent to said settlement had
been vitiated by mistake or fraud and therefore,
the amicable settlement should be annulled and
a new one entered into by the parties.
Meanwhile, the Lauretas filed in the MTC, a motion
for the issuance of a writ of execution based on the
amicable settlement. As the inferior court issued the
writ, petitioner filed in the RTC a complaint for the
annulment of the amicable settlement with prayer for
Notes on Alternative Dispute Resolution | Cerbo, Embalsado, Garcia, and Tan | 2024 | Page 30
a writ of preliminary injunction and/ or restraining
order.
ISSUE: WHETHER OR NOT IT WAS PROPER
FOR GALUBA TO FILE FOR AN ACTION FOR
ANNULMENT
RULING:
Section 6 of P.D. 1508 is mandatory in character.
The conciliation process at the barangay level is a
condition precedent for the filing of a complaint
in court.
Non-compliance with the condition precedent
prescribed by P.D. 1508 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.
Once the parties have signed an amicable
settlement, any party who finds reasons to reject
it must do so in accordance with Section 13 of
P.D. 1508 which states:
SEC. 13. Repudiation. — Any party to the dispute
may, within ten [10] days from the date of the
settlement, repudiate the same by filing with the
Barangay Captain 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 of a complaint, provided for in Section 6,
hereof.
Pursuant to P.D. 1508, Section 12, Rule VI of the
Katarungang Pambarangay Rules which were
promulgated "for the amicable settlement of
disputes at the barangay level, without judicial
recourse," also provides that "[f]ailure to repudiate
the settlement or the arbitration agreement within
the time limits respectively set [in Section 10
thereof], shall be deemed a waiver of the right to
challenge on said grounds," i.e., fraud, violence or
intimidation.
Any party, therefore, who fails to avail himself of
the remedy set forth in Section 13 must face the
consequences of the amicable settlement for he
can no longer file an action in court to redress
his grievances arising from said settlement.
It should be emphasized that under Section 11 of
said law, "the amicable settlement and arbitration
award shall have the force and effect of a final
judgment of a court upon the expiration of the ten
(10) days from the date thereof unless repudiation of
the settlement has been made or a petition for
nullification of the award has been filed before the
proper city or municipal court."
P.D. 1508 does not provide for a judicial
procedure for the annulment of an amicable
settlement because the remedy of repudiation
supplants the remedy of a court annulment.

An aggrieved party may only resort to a court action

after he has repudiated the settlement in
accordance with Section 13 as Section 6 clearly
states that repudiation is a pre-condition to the
filing of a complaint regarding any matter within
the authority of the Lupong Tagapayapa.

It should be clarified, however, that the "petition for

nullification" mentioned in Section 11 refers to an
arbitration award pursuant to Section 7 of the same
law and not to an amicable settlement.

The primordial objective of P.D. 1508 is to reduce

the number of court litigations and prevent the
deterioration of the quality of justice which has been
brought about by the indiscriminate filing of cases in
the courts.

To allow court actions assailing unrepudiated

amicable settlements would exacerbate congestion
of court dockets. This is repugnant to the spirit of
P.D. 1508.

Having failed to repudiate the amicable

settlement within the ten-day period, petitioner
is left with no recourse but to abide by its terms.

He, therefore, acted correctly when he eventually

fully satisfied his obligation pursuant to the amicable
settlement, thereby, rendering his case moot and
academic.

Notes on Alternative Dispute Resolution | Cerbo, Embalsado, Garcia, and Tan | 2024 | Page 31