B A R A N G AY

C O N C I L I AT I O N
PROCEEDING
LEARN MORE
BASIC PRINCIPLES
 The Revised Katarungang Pambarangay Law under
Secs. 399-422 of R.A. 7160, otherwise known as the
Local Government Code of 1991, effective on January
1, 1992
 repealed P.D. 1508,
 introduced substantial changes not only in the
authority granted to the Lupong Tagapamayapa  Primordial aim of the Katarungang Pambarangay Law
 Is to reduce the number or court litigations and prevent the
but also in the procedure to be observed in the
deterioration of the quality of justice which has been brought
settlement of disputes within the authority of the about by the indiscriminate filing of cases in the courts
Lupon.. (Zamora v. Heirs of Izquierdo, 443 SCRA 24, 31)
 The barangay justice system was established primarily as a
means of easing up the congestion of cases in judicial courts
 It was originally embodied in P.D. 1508, but is now
incorporated in the Local Government Code of 1991
NEXT SLIDE (Aquino v. Aure, 546 SCRA 71, 79
 PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE
BARANGAY ARE NOT JUDICIAL
PROCEEDINGS
 The proceedings before the Lupong
Tagapamayapa or the Pangkat ng
Tagapagkasundo of the Barangay are not
judicial proceedings.
 Legally, there is no barangay court.

NEXT SLIDE
 PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE
BARANGAY ARE NOT JUDICIAL
PROCEEDINGS
 The Lupon and the Pangkat do not have inherent
adjudicatory powers. They resolve disputes or
attempt to do so through amicable settlement,
conciliation, and arbitration.
 Under Secs. 411 and 413 of the Local
Government Code
Any adjudicatory power exercised by any of
these bodies must be agreed upon by the
parties in writing.
Such agreement may involve their
willingness to abide by any arbitral award
given by the Lupon or the Pangkat

NEXT SLIDE
IMPORTANCE OF BARANGAY
CONCILIATION
PROCEEDINGS
 Where the case is covered by the Katarungang Pambarangay Law, the
compulsory process of arbitration required therein is a pre-condition for filing
a complaint in court
 The case should be dismissed when:
a. It did not state in the complaint that it is one of the excepted cases; or
b. It did not not allege in the complaint any prior availment of said
conciliation process; or
c. The complaint did not have a certification that no conciliation or
settlement had been reached by the parties

NEXT SLIDE
IMPORTANCE OF BARANGAY
CONCILIATION
PROCEEDINGS
 In the case of Agbayani v. Court of Appeals,
674 SCRA 358, 362
 This doctrine is handed down in civil cases
 However, it is submitted that the same should
also apply to criminal cases

NEXT SLIDE
IMPORTANCE OF BARANGAY
CONCILIATION
PROCEEDINGS
 Section 412 of the Local Government Code of 1991provides
that:
 “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 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 as attested to
by the lupon or pangkat chairman, or unless the settlement
has been repudiated.”

NEXT SLIDE
IMPORTANCE OF BARANGAY
CONCILIATION
PROCEEDINGS
 Under Section 1(j) of Rule 16 of the Rules of Court
 A motion to dismiss a civil complaint may be filed if a
condition precedent for the filing of the claim has not
been complied with
Failure to undergo barangay conciliation
proceedings is non-compliance with a condition
precedent

NEXT SLIDE
IMPORTANCE OF BARANGAY
CONCILIATION
PROCEEDINGS
 The Administrative Circular No. 14-93 of the SC provides that:
 “A case filed in court without compliance with prior Barangay conciliation which is a pre-
condition for formal adjudication (Sec. 412 [a] of the Revised Katarungang Pambarangay
Law) may be dismissed upon motion of defendant/s, not for lack of jurisdiction of the
court but for insufficiency of the cause of action or prematurity (Royales v. IAC, 127 SCRA
470; Gonzales v. CA, 151 SCRA 289), or the court may suspend proceedings upon petition of
any party x x x and refer the case moto proprio to the appropriate barangay authority applying
by analogy Section 408 (g), 2nd paragraph of the Revised Katarungang Pambarangay Law
which reads as follows:
 “the court in which non-criminal cases not falling within the authority of the
Lupon under this code are filed may, at any time before trial, motu proprio
refer the case to the Lupon concerned for amicable settlement.”

NEXT SLIDE
IMPORTANCE OF BARANGAY
CONCILIATION
PROCEEDINGS
 The above circular was issued prior to the
amendments of the Rules of Court and so the ground
for dismissal was “insufficiency of the cause of
action.”
 It is submitted that the proper ground to be
invoked since July 1,1997, the date when the
amendment to the Rules took effect, should be:
“That a condition precedent for filing the claim
has not been complied with” (Sec. lfj], Rule 16,
Rules of Court).
NEXT SLIDE
 NO MOTU PROPRIO
DISMISSAL

 The court may not motu proprio dismiss a case on

the ground of failure to comply with the
requirement for barangay conciliation, the ground
not being among those mentioned for the dismissal
of a complaint on the initiative of the
 NO MOTU PROPRIO
DISMISSAL
 Sec. 1 of Rule 9 of the Rules of Court provides
only the following grounds for a motu proprio
dismissal:
(a)the court has no jurisdiction over the subject
matter;
(b)there is another cause of action pending
between the same parties for the same cause;
(c)the action is barred by a prior judgment; and
(d)the action is barred by the statute of limitations
(Aquino v. Aure, 546 SCRA 71).

NEXT SLIDE
 Under Sections 18-19 (a) of the 1991 Rules on Summary Procedure
 In cases requiring referral to the lupon for for conciliation, a motion to
dismiss may be filed on the ground of failure to undergo the barangay
conciliation proceedings where there is no showing of compliance with such
requirement, although the dismissal, by its very tenor of the rule, is one
without prejudice.
 Under Section 18 of the same rule
 Where the case is dismissed for non-compliance with the conciliation
proceedings, the dismissed case may be revived only, after such
requirement shall have been complied with.

RULES IN RELATION
NEXT SLIDE
TO CASES COVERED
BY SUMMARY
 NON-COMPLIANCE
WITH CONCILIATION PROCEEDINGS
IS NOT JURISDICTIONAL
 Spouses Santos v. Spouses Lumbao , 519 SCRA 408,
422-423
 It is well-settled that the non-referral of a case for
barangay conciliation, when so required under under
the law, is not jurisdictional in nature and may,
therefore, be deemed waived if not raised seasonably
in a motion to dismiss
Hence, a party who does not raise the defect
seasonably can no longer raise the defense of non-
compliance with the barangay conciliation
proceedings to seek the dismissal of the complaint.
NEXT SLIDE
 Note, however, that under Section 1,
Rule 9 and Section 1, Rule 16 of the
Rules of Court, it provides that:
 “defenses and objections not
pleaded either in a motion to
dismiss of in the answer are
deemed waived”
 Also, if no motion to dismiss has
been filed, any of the grounds for
dismissal provided for in Rule 16
may be pleaded as affirmative
defenses in the answer.
 NON-COMPLIANCE
WITH CONCILIATION PROCEEDINGS
IS NOT JURISDICTIONAL
 Junson v. Martinez
 The conciliation procedure is not a jurisdictional
requirement in the sense that failure to have prior recourse
to it does not deprive a court of its jurisdiction, either
over the subject matter or over the person of the defendant
 Non-compliance with a condition-precedent under the law
does not prevent a court of competent jurisdiction from
exercising its powers of adjudication over a case where
defendants fail to object to such exercise of jurisdiction
 But such objection should be seasonably made before the
court first taking cognizance of the complaint.

NEXT SLIDE
SUBJECT
MATTERS FOR  Section 408 of the Local Government Code establishes
the general rule that:
SETTLEMENT  The Lupon of each barangay shall have authority to
bring together the parties actually residing in the
same city of municipality for amicable settlement of
all disputes

 It provides that:
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

NEXT SLIDE
SUBJECT MATTERS
FOR SETTLEMENT
1. Where one party is the government, or any subdivision or instrumentality
thereof;
2. Where one party is a public officer or employee and the dispute relates to the
performance of his official functions;
3. Where the dispute involves real properties located in different cities and
municipalities, unless the parties thereto agree to submit their difference to
EXCEPTIONS amicable settlement by an appropriate Lupon;
4. Any complaint by or against corporations, partnerships or juridical entities,
since only individuals shall be parties to Barangay conciliation proceedings either
as complainants or respondents (Sec. 1, Rule VI, Katarungang Pambarangay
Rules);
5. Disputes involving parties who actually reside in barangays of different cities
or municipalities, except where such barangay units adjoin each other and the
parties thereto agree to submit their differences to amicable settlement by an
appropriate Lupon;
6. Offenses for which the law prescribes a maximum penalty of imprisonment
exceeding one (1) year or a fine of over five thousand pesos (P5,000.00);
7. Offenses where there is no private offended party;
NEXT SLIDE
SUBJECT MATTERS
FOR SETTLEMENT
8. Disputes where urgent legal action is necessary to prevent
injustice from being committed or further continued, specifically the
following:
A. Criminal cases where accused is under police custody or
EXCEPTIONS detention (See Sec. 412 [b][l], Revised Katarungang
Pambarangay Law);
B. Petitions for habeas corpus by a person illegally deprived of his
rightful custody over another or a person illegally deprived of or
on acting in his behalf;
C. Actions coupled with provisional remedies such as preliminary
injunction, attachment, delivery of personal property and support
during the pendency of the action; and
D. Actions which may be barred by the Statute of Limitations
NEXT SLIDE
SUBJECT MATTERS
FOR SETTLEMENT
8. Disputes where urgent legal action is necessary to prevent
injustice from being committed or further continued, specifically the
following:
A. Criminal cases where accused is under police custody or
EXCEPTIONS detention (See Sec. 412 [b][l], Revised Katarungang
Pambarangay Law);
B. Petitions for habeas corpus by a person illegally deprived of his
rightful custody over another or a person illegally deprived of or
on acting in his behalf;
C. Actions coupled with provisional remedies such as preliminary
injunction, attachment, delivery of personal property and support
during the pendency of the action; and
D. Actions which may be barred by the Statute of Limitations
NEXT SLIDE
SUBJECT MATTERS
FOR SETTLEMENT
9. Any class of disputes which the President may determine in the interest of justice
or upon the recommendation of the Secretary of Justice;
10. Where the dispute arises from the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL)
EXCEPTIONS
(Secs. 46 and 47, R. A. 6657);
11. Labor disputes or controversies arising from employer-employee relations
(Montoya v. Escayo, et al., 171 SCRA 442)
 Art. 226, Labor Code, as amended, grants original and exclusive jurisdiction
over conciliation and mediation of disputes, grievances or problems to certain
offices of the Department of Labor and Employment);
12. Actions to annul judgment upon a compromise which may be filed directly in
court (See Sanchez v. Tu- paz, 158 SCRA 459)

NEXT SLIDE
  Section 412(b) of the Local Government Code also
enumerates the instances where the parties may go
directly to court without the need for undergoing the
barangay conciliation proceedings, namely

SUBJECT
MATTERS FORA. Where the accused is under detention
SETTLEMENT B. Where the accused has otherwise been deprived of personal
liberty calling for habeas corpus proceedings
C. Where actions are coupled with provisional remedies such as
preliminary injunction, attachment, delivery of personal property,
ans support pendente lite; and,
D. Where the action may otherwise be barred by the statute of
limitations

NEXT SLIDE
 Pascual v. Pascual
 It ruled that the requirement of actual
residence pertains to the real party in interest
of actual residence and does not apply to the
attorney-in-fact as plaintiff
 The court instructed that “since the plaintiff-
herein petitioner, the real party in interest, is
not an actual resident of the barangay where
the defendant-herein respondent resides, the
local lupon has no jurisdiction over the
dispute, hence, prior referral to it for
conciliation is not a pre-condition to its filing
in court.

50%
60%
50%

NEXT SLIDE
 Candito v. Macapagal, 221 SCRA
328, 332
 The fact that the petitioner and private
respondent reside in the same
municipality does not justify compulsory
conciliation where the other co-
defendants reside in barangays of
different cities and municipalities

50%
60%
50%

NEXT SLIDE
 Abagatnan v. Spouses Clarito, G.R.
No. 211966
 Where the party resides in Roxas City, the other in
Laguna and another in Pasig City, the Lupon has
no jurisdiction over their dispute, and prior
referral of the case for barangay conciliation is not
a precondition to its filing in court
 In sum, parties who do not actually reside in the
same city of municipality or adjoining barangays
are not required to submit their dispute to the
lupin as a precondition to the filing of a complaint
in court

50%
60%
50%

NEXT SLIDE
 RULES ON VENUE
 Section 409 of the Local Government Code
1. Disputes between persons actually residing in the same
barangay shall be brought for amicable settlement before the
lupon of said barangay
2. Those involving actual residents of different barangays
within the same city or municipality shall be brought in the
barangay where the respondent or any of the respondents
actually resides, at the election of the complainant

NEXT SLIDE
 RULES ON VENUE
 Section 409 of the Local Government Code
3. 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
4. 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.

NEXT SLIDE
  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.

NEXT SLIDE
INITIATION
OF
PROCEEDING
 Section 410 (a) of the Local Government Code
 Upon payment of the appropriate filing fee, any

S
individual, who has a cause of action against another
individual, involving any matter within the authority of
the Lupon may complain, orally or in writing, to the
chairman of the Lupon
 Note: The chairman of the lupon is the Punong
Barangay (Section 399, LGC)
 Magno v. Velasco-Jacoba, 475 SCRA 584  Section 410 (b), LGC
 The fact that the complaint was addressed to  Upon receipt of the complaint, the chairman
the barangay captain is of no moment because
shall summon the respondents within the next
he is the chairman of the Lupong
Tagapamayapa
working day to appear.
 If the chairman fails in his mediation efforts
within 15 days from the first meeting, he
shall set a date to constitute the Pangkat ng
Tagapagkasundo
NEXT SLIDE
 PERSONAL
APPEARANCE OF
 Section. 415, LGC
THE PARTIES
 General Rule: The parties must appear in
person in all katarungang pambarangay
proceediings and without the assistance of
counsel or representatives
 Exception: Minors and incompetents, in
which case, they may be assisted by their
next-of-kin who are not lawyers.

NEXT SLIDE
 Section 1, Rule VI KP
Rules
 Only individuals
shall be parties to the

PARTIES TO
proceedings (either as
a complainants or
respondents)
 No complaint by or
against corporations,
partnerships or other
juridical entities shall
THE
PROCEEDINGS
be filed, received or
acted upon,

NEXT SLIDE
 FORM OF
 Section 411, LGC
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 maybe.
 When the parties to the dispute do not use the same
language or dialect, the settlement shall be written
in the language or dialect known to them.

NEXT SLIDE
EFFECT OF
AMICABLE
SETTLEMENT
AND AWARD;
 Section 416, LGC
 The amicable settlement and arbitration award
REPUDIATION
shall have the 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 (Sec. 416, R.A.
7160).

NEXT SLIDE
EFFECT OF AMICABLE
SETTLEMENT AND AWARD;
REPUDIATION
 Chavez v.Court of Appeals, 453 SCRA 843
 An amicable settlement reached after barangay
conciliation proceedings has 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

NEXT SLIDE
 EFFECT OF
SETTLEMENT
REPUDIATION
The 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 settlement agreed upon by
the parties before the lupon chairman 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.
AMICABLE
AND AWARD;
 The relevant provision of the last paragraph of
Section 408, LGC
The court in which non-criminal cases not
falling within the authority of the Lupon
under this Code are filed may, at any time
before trial, motu proprio refer the case to
the lupon concerned for amicable
settlement.
NEXT SLIDE
 EFFECT OF AMICABLE
SETTLEMENT AND AWARD;
REPUDIATION

 The court appears not to favor referral of cases

falling under summary procedure to the lupon
for amicable settlement because Sections 7-8 of
the Rule on Summary Procedure mandate a
preliminary conference which is precisely for
the purpose of giving room for a possible
amicable settlement

NEXT SLIDE
  Diaz v. Gestopa, Jr., 652 SCRA 434, 439
 While the last paragraph of the aforecited
provision apparently gives the court the
discretion to refer the case to the lupon for
amicable settlement although it may not fall
EFFECT OF AMICABLE within the authority of the lupon, the referral of
SETTLEMENT AND AWARD; said subject civil case to the lupon is saliently an
unsound exercise of discretion, considering that
REPUDIATION the matter falls under the Rules on Summary
Procedure was promulgated for the purpose of
achieving
 The reason is that the Rules on Summary
Procedure was promulgated for the purpose of
achieving “an expeditious and inexpensive
determination of cases.”
 The fact that unlawful detainer cases fall under
summary procedure, speedy resolution thereof is
thus deemed a matter of public policy. To do
otherwise would ultimately defeat the very
essence of the creation of the Rules on
Summary Procedure.”

NEXT SLIDE
 REPUDIATION OF THE

SETTLEMENT
Section 418, LGC
 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 a
sufficient basis for the issuance of the certification for
filing a complaint.
 Section 14, Rule VI, Katarungang Pambarangay Rules
Failure to repudiate the settlement within the ten-
day period shall be deemed a waiver of the right to
challenge the settlement on said grounds

NEXT SLIDE
 REPUDIATION OF THE
SETTLEMENT
 Quiros v. Arjona, 426 SCRA 57, 63
 Generally, the rule is that where no
repudiation was made during the 10-day
period, the amicable settlement attains the
status of finality and it becomes the
ministerial duty of the court to implement
and enforce it
However, such rule is not inflexible
for it admits of certain exceptions

NEXT SLIDE
REPUDIATION OF THE
SETTLEMENT
 In Quiros, the parties entered into two agreements for
the conveyance of a parcel of land, but on ocular
inspection, the Municipal Trial Court found that the
land inspected was different from the land intended to
be conveyed because of the disparity in the description
of the property in the agreements.
While the court conceded the validity of the written
agreements, subject, however, to its reformation, the
court concluded that no writ of execution could be
issued for failure to determine the land intended to
be delivered.

NEXT SLIDE
 EXECUTION OF
SETTLEMENT
 The timeline of six months, according to
 Section 417, LGC
 The amicable settlement or arbitration
award may be enforced by the lupon
within six 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.
AWARD OF
the court, is for the benefit. Not only of the
complainant, but also of the respondent.
 The plain words of the law mandate
that the period of six months should be
computed from the date of settlement.
 This period, however, declared the
court, cannot be strictly applied in
certain cases.
NEXT SLIDE
EXECUTION OF AWARD OF
SETTLEMENT

If applied to a particular case because

of its peculiar circumstance, the
computation of the time line from the
date of the settlement may be arbitrary
and unjust and contrary to the intent of
the law

NEXT SLIDE
 EXECUTION OF AWARD OF
SETTLEMENT
Vidal v. Escueta, 417 SCRA 617, 630-
631
Under the amicable settlement made  But under the settlement, the respondent was not
obliged to vacate the property on or before July
by the parties before the Lupon dated 15, 2003; hence, the settlement could be
January 15, 2003, the respondents were enforced only after September 15, 2003, when
obliged to vacate the subject property the respondent was obliged to vacate the
on or before September 15, 2003. If the property. By then, the 6 months under Section
time line of 6 months under Section 417 shall have already elapsed.
417 were to be strictly applied and
literally followed, the complainant may
enforce the settlement only up to July
15, 2003. NEXT SLIDE
 EXECUTION OF AWARD OF
SETTLEMENT
Vidal v. Escueta, 417 SCRA 617, 630-631
The complainant can no longer enforce the
settlement through the Lupon, but had to
enforce the same through an action in the
MTC, in derogation of the objective of
Section 417 of the LGC.
 The law should be construed and applied
in such a way as to reflect the will of the
legislature

NEXT SLIDE

 Miguel v. Montanez, 664 SCRA 345, 352-
253
 The enforcement by execution of the
amicable settlement provided for under
Section 417 of the Local Government
Code, either under the first remedy
(within 6 months from settlement), is only
applicable if the contracting parties have
not repudiated such settlement within 10
days from the date thereof in accordance
with Section 416 of the Local
Government Code
 If the amicable settlement is repudiated by one
party, either expressly or impliedly, the other party
has two options: (1) to enforce the compromise in
accordance with the LGC or the Rules of Court as
the case may be, or (2) to consider it rescinded
and insist upon his original demand
 This in accord with Article 2041 of the Civil Code
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 the original demand
NEXT SLIDE
 The court further declared that
the language of Article 2041 of
the Civil Code denotes that no
action for rescission is required,
and that the party aggrieved by
the breach of the compromise
agreement, may if he chooses,
bring the suit contemplated or
involved in his original demand,
as if there had never been any
compromise agreement.