REMEDIAL LAW REVIEWER

KATARUNGANG PAMBARANGGAY
(Part I of IX)
Purpose:
1. To force the parties to settle the case out of court or amicably.
Testate
I.

Katarungang Pambarangay
A. Local Government Code (Secs. 399-422)

Sec. 399. Lupong Tagapamayapa. - (a) There is hereby created in each barangay a lupong
tagapamayapa, xxx.
xxx
(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.
Sec. 400. Oath and Term of Office. - xxx.
Sec. 401. Vacancies. - xxx.
Sec. 402. Functions of the Lupon. - xxx
Sec. 403. Secretary of the Lupon. - xxx
Sec. 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,
xxx.
Sec. 405. Vacancies in the Pangkat. - xxx
Sec. 406. Character of Office and Service of Lupon Members. - xxx
Sec. 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.
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:
xxx (compiled by SC AC 14-93)
Sec. 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 complainant.
(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.
Rules on Venue
.1 living in the same barangay said barangay
.2 living in the different barangays within the same city or municipality barangay where the/a
respondent resides, at the option of the complainant

muklo

Remedial Law Reviewer

.3 involving real property or any interest therein where the real property or the larger portion thereof
is situated
.4 arising at the workplace or at the educational institution where such workplace or institution is
located
Sec. 410. Procedure for Amicable Settlement. - (a) Who may initiate proceeding - Upon
payment of the appropriate filing fee, any individual who has a cause of action against another
individual involving any matter within the authority of the lupon may complain, orally or in
writing, to the lupon chairman of the barangay.
(b) Mediation by lupon chairman - Upon receipt of the complaint, the lupon chairman shall
within the next working day summon the respondent(s), with notice to the complainant(s) for
them and their witnesses to appear before him for a mediation of their conflicting interests. If he
fails in his mediation effort within fifteen (15) days from the first meeting of the parties before
him, he shall forthwith set a date for the constitution of the pangkat in accordance with the
provisions of this Chapter.
(c) Suspension of prescriptive period of offenses - While the dispute is under mediation,
conciliation, or arbitration, the prescriptive periods for offenses and cause of action under
existing laws shall be interrupted upon filing of the complaint with the punong barangay. The
prescriptive periods shall resume upon receipt by the complainant of the complaint or the
certificate of repudiation or of the certification to file action issued by the lupon or pangkat
secretary: Provided, however, That such interruption shall not exceed sixty (60) days from the
filing of the complaint with the punong barangay.
(d) Issuance of summons; hearing; grounds for disqualification - The pangkat shall convene
not later than three (3) days from its constitution, on the day and hour set by the lupon
chairman, to hear both parties and their witnesses, simplify issues, and explore all possibilities
for amicable settlement. For this purpose, the pangkat may issue summons for the personal
appearance of parties and witnesses before it. 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 herein provided for.
(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***

.1 Complaint (need not be in writing) with filing fee to the lupon chairman of the barangay (interrupts
prescription for at most 60 days) example: simple defamation. Beyond 60 days and no settlement,
it starts the running of the prescription. File to the fiscal.

.2 lupon chairman shall within the next working day summon the respondents, with notice to the
complainants for them and their witnesses(?) to appear before him for a mediation

.3 if there is failure to mediate (act as intermediary) within 15 days from the first meeting, pangkat is
constituted.
.4 pangkat convenes not later than 3 days from constitution, may issue summons
.5 In the event that a party moves to disqualify any member of the pangkat on a ground discovered
after the constitution, 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.
.6 The pangkat shall arrive at a settlement or resolution of the dispute within 15 days from the day it
convenes, extendible for at most 15 days; may be extended further only in clearly meritorious
cases.
.7 The prescriptive periods shall resume
.a upon receipt by the complainant of
)1

the complaint

)2

the certificate of repudiation issued by the lupon or pangkat secretary

)3

the certification to file action issued by the lupon or pangkat secretary

muklo

Remedial Law Reviewer

.b lapse of 60 days from filing of complaint with the baranggay chairman

Sec. 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 or dialect known to them.
***Form of settlement***
.1 in writing
.2 in a language or dialect known to the parties
.3 signed by the parties, and
.4 attested to by the lupon or pangkat chairman
Sec. 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. xxx (compiled by SC AC 14-93)
(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.
GR: Preconditions to filing a complaint in court when the cause of action within the authority of the
lupon, either
.1 There had been
.a confrontation before the lupon chairman or the pangkat,
.b no conciliation or settlement has been reached, and
.c certification by the lupon or pangkat secretary as attested to by the lupon or pangkat chairman
that no conciliation or settlement has been reached
.2 or, settlement has been repudiated by the parties thereto
Sec. 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.
Agreement to arbitrate must be in writing. Possible only when the parties agree to arbitrate.
Repudiation of
1. Agreement to arbitrate within 5 days from agreement to arbitrate (Sec. 413)
2. Arbitration award within 10 days, action for annulment of arbitration award with the MTC (Sec.
416)
3. Amicable settlement within 10 days by an affidavit filed with the lupon chairman (Sec. 418)
Sec. 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.
Sec. 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.
Sec. 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

muklo

Remedial Law Reviewer

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 (non-criminal cases not within the lupons authority referred by
a court), 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.
Sec. 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 of an amicable settlement or arbitration award in KB***
.1 by motion by the lupon within 6 months from date of settlement
.2 by action before the inferior courts after 6 months from date of settlement
Sec. 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.
Grounds for repudiation of settlement: consent vitiated by fraud, violence, or intimidation
Sec. 419. 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.
Sec. 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.
Sec. 421. Administration; Rules and Regulations. - xxx.
Sec. 422. Appropriations. - xxx

B. Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 14-93 back

I. All disputes are subject to Barangay conciliation pursuant to the Revised Katarungang
Pambarangay Law xxx, and prior recourse thereto is a pre-condition before filing a complaint in
court or any government offices, except in the following disputes:
1. Where one party is the government, or any subdivision or instrumentality thereof;
2. Where one party is a public officer or employee, and the dispute relates to the
performance of his official functions;
3. Where the dispute involves real properties located in different cities and
municipalities, unless the parties thereto agree to submit their difference to amicable
settlement by an appropriate Lupon;
4. Any complaint by or against corporations, partnership 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 over five thousand pesos (P5,000.00);
7. Offenses where there is no private offended party;
8. Disputes where urgent legal action is necessary to prevent injustice from being
committed or further continued, specifically the following:
a. Criminal cases where accused is under police custody or detention (see Sec. 412
(b) (1), Revised Katarungang Pambarangay Law);

muklo

Remedial Law Reviewer

b. Petitions for habeas corpus by a person illegally deprived of his rightful custody
over another or a person illegally deprived 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.
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) (Sec.
46 & 47, R.A. 6657);
11. Labor disputes or controversies arising from employer-employee relations (Montoya
vs. Escayo, et al., 171 SCRA 442; Art. 226, Labor Code, as amended, which 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 vs. Tupaz, 158 SCRA 459).
Exceptions to Barangay Conciliation
***When prior recourse to Barangay conciliation is not a pre-condition before filing a complaint in court
or any government offices*** (MEMORIZE!)

.1 one party is the government, or any subdivision or instrumentality thereof; (ratio: delaying the
government service)

.2 one party is a public officer or employee, and the dispute relates to the performance of his official
functions; (one cannot compromise the performance government function)

.3 dispute involves real properties located in different cities and municipalities, unless the parties
thereto agree to submit their difference to amicable settlement by an appropriate Lupon;

.4 complaint by or against juridical entities

.5 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 punishable by more than 1 year or a fine over P5,000

.7 Offenses where there is no private offended party
.8 accused is under police custody or detention
.9 Petitions for habeas corpus
.10

Actions coupled with provisional remedies

.11

Actions which may be barred by the Statute of Limitations.

.12

As determined by the President upon recommendation of Sec of Justice

.13 CARL disputes

.14

Labor disputes or controversies arising from employer-employee relations

.15

Actions to annul judgment upon a compromise

Escolin: Cases for legal separation should be among the exceptions. It was an oversight.
II. Under the provisions of R.A. 7160 on Katarungang Pambarangay conciliation, as
implemented by the Katarungang Pambarangay Rules and Regulations promulgated by the
Secretary of Justice, the certification for filing a complaint in court or any government office
shall be issued by Barangay authorities only upon compliance with the following requirements:
1. Issued by the Lupon Secretary and attested by the Lupon Chairman (Punong
Barangay), certifying that a confrontation of the parties has taken place and that a
conciliation settlement has been reached, but the same has been subsequently repudiated
(Sec. 412, Revised Katarungang Pambarangay Law; Sec. 2[h], Rule III, Katarungang
Pambarangay Rules);
2. Issued by the Pangkat Secretary and attested by the Pangkat Chairman, certifying that:

muklo

Remedial Law Reviewer

a. a confrontation of the parties took place but no conciliation/settlement has been

reached (Sec. 4[f], Rule III, Katarungang Pambarangay Rules; or
b. that no personal confrontation took place before the Pangkat through no fault of
the complainant (Sec. 4[f], Rule III, Katarungang pambarangay Rules).
3. Issued by the Punong Barangay, as requested by the proper party on the ground of
failure of settlement where the dispute involves members of the same indigenous cultural
community, which shall be settled in accordance with the customs and traditions of that
particular cultural community, or where one or more of the parties to the aforesaid dispute
belong to the minority and the parties mutually agreed to submit their dispute to the
indigenous system of amicable settlement, and there has been no settlement as certified by
the datu or tribal leader or elder to the Punong Barangay of place of settlement (Secs. 1,4 &
5, Rule IX, Katarungang Pambarangay Rules); and
4. If mediation or conciliation efforts before the Punong Barangay proved unseccessful,
there having been no agreement to arbitrate (Sec. 410 [b], Revised Katarungang
Pambarangay Law; Sec. 1, c. (1), Rule III, Katarungang Pambarangay Rules), or where the
respondent fails to appear at the mediation proceeding before the Punong Barangay (3rd
par. Sec. 8, a, Rule VI, Katarungang Pambarangay Rules), the Punong Barangay shall not
cause the issuance at this stage of a certification to file action, because it is now mandatory
for him to constitute the pangkat before whom mediation, conciliation, or arbitration
proceedings shall be held.
Requirements for issuance of certification for filing a complaint in court or any
government office
.1 Issued by the Lupon Secretary and attested by the Lupon Chairman, certifying that
.a a confrontation took place and that a conciliation settlement has been reached, but the same
has been subsequently repudiated
.2 Issued by the Pangkat Secretary and attested by the Pangkat Chairman, certifying that:
.a a confrontation took place but no conciliation/settlement has been reached, or
.b no confrontation took place before the Pangkat through no fault of the complainant
.3 Issued by the Punong Barangay, as requested by the proper party on the ground of failure of
settlement where
.a Either
)1

the dispute involves members of the same indigenous cultural community, which shall be
settled in accordance with the customs and traditions of that particular cultural community, or

)2

one or more of the parties to the aforesaid dispute belong to the minority and the parties
mutually agreed to submit their dispute to the indigenous system of amicable settlement,
and

.b there has been no settlement as certified by the datu or tribal leader or elder to the Punong
Barangay of place of settlement; and
The Punong Barangay shall not issue the certification to file action, but should constitute
the pangkat in the following cases:
.1 If mediation or conciliation efforts before the Punong Barangay proved unsuccessful, there having
been no agreement to arbitrate, or
.2 where the respondent fails to appear at the mediation proceeding before the Punong Barangay,
III. xxx
IV. A case filed in court without compliance with prior Barangay conciliation which is a precondition for formal adjudication xxx may be dismissed upon motion of defendant/s, not for
lack of jurisdiction of the court but for failure to state a cause of action or prematurity xxx, or
the court may suspend proceedings upon petition of any party under Sec. 1, Rule 21 of the
Rules of Court; and refer the case motu proprio to the appropriate Barangay authority, applying
by analogy Sec. 408 [g], 2nd par., 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 case to the Lupon concerned
for amicable settlement.

muklo

Remedial Law Reviewer

***Options where a case is filed in court without the required prior Barangay
conciliation***

.1 dismissal upon motion of defendant on failure to state a cause of action or prematurity (they
bypassed the lupon and the right has not been violated yet.
.2 suspension of proceedings upon petition of any party

.3 refer the case motu proprio to the appropriate Barangay authority

C. Cases
Morata v. Go, 125 SCRA 444 (1983)
Petition for certiorari and prohibition with prayer for writ of prelim injunction to review the order of Judge
Tomol CFI Cebu BR11.
FACTS: Respondent spouses Victor & Flora Go filed in the CFI of Cebu a complaint against petitioners
Julius & Ma. Luisa Morata for recovery of a sum of money plus damages amounting to Php49,400.
Petitioners filed a motion to dismiss on grounds that of failure of the complaint to allege prior availment
by plaintiffs of the barangay conciliation process required by PD1508, as well as the absence of a
certification by the Lupon or Pangkat Secretary that no conciliation or settlement had been reached by
the parties. The motion was opposed by private respondents. Respondent judge denied the said
motion to dismiss. Petitioners filed a motion for recon but the same was denied.
HELD: The Lupon has the authority to settle amicably all types of disputes involving parties who
actually reside in the same city or municipality. The law makes no distinction with respect to the classes
of civil disputes that should be compromised at the barangay level, in contradistinction to the limitation
imposed upon the Lupon over criminal cases. The fact that the city or municipal courts are forum for the
nullification or execution of the settlement or arbitration award issued by the Lupon cannot be construed
as a limitation of the scope of authority of the Lupon. This merely confers upon the city and municipal
courts the jurisdiction to pass upon and resolve petitions or actions for nullification or enforcement of
settlement/arbitration awards issued by the Lupon, regardless of the amount involved or the nature of
the original dispute. But there is nothing in the context of said sections to justify the thesis that the
mandated conciliation process in other types of cases applies exclusively to said inferior courts. The
conciliation process at the barangay level is compulsory not only for cases falling under the exclusive
competent of the MeTCs and MTCs, but for actions cognizable by the RTCs as well.

Cases falling within the jurisdiction of RTC must also be coursed first to the barangay court in
cases mentioned by law cognizable by the Lupon.
Candido v. Macapagal, 221 SCRA 328 (1993)

Petition for certiorari of the orders of Judge Macapagal RTC18 Malolos.

FACTS: RTC judge dismissed the complaint of petitioners Emiliana and Francisca Candido against
private respondent Mila Contreras on the ground of lack of jurisdiction for petitioners failure to comply
with the mandatory bgy conciliation process required by PD1508. Petitioners are the only legitimate
children of Agapito Candido and Florencia Santos. However, Agapito eventually left his legitimate
family and lived with Sagraria Lozada until his death. Sagraria, Jorge, Virginia, Maximina, and Eduardo
who represented themselves to be the sole heirs of Agapito executed a Deed of Extra-judicial
Settlement of Estate with Sale covering parcels of land owned by the latter and sold to private
respondent Contreras. Petitioners instituted an action with the RTC to annul the Deed of Extra-judicial
Settlement of Estate with Sale. Private respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss on grounds that petitioners
failed to comply with mandatory bgy conciliation. RTC approved the MtD. Petitioners filed a MfR which
was denied. (Note: other defendants of the civil case reside in different municipalities and cities.)
HELD: The barangay court or Lupon has jurisdiction over disputes between parties who are actual
residents of barangays located in the same city or municipality or adjoining barangays of different cities
or municipalities. Where some of the other co-defendants reside in barangays of municipalities, cities
and provinces different with that of the complainant, compulsory conciliation is not required. The action
may be filed directly in court.

Where the complaint does not state that it is one of the excepted cases, ot it does not have
certification that no conciliation process, or it does have certification that no conciliation or
settlement had been reached by the parties, the case could be dismissed on motion.

Ramos v. CA, 174 SCRA 690 (1989)

muklo

Remedial Law Reviewer

FACTS: Domingo Ramos authorized his brother Manuel to sell his share of lands owned by them in
common with their other brothers and sisters. Manuel did. Later, Domingo revoked the power of
attorney and demanded an accounting from Manuel. Manuel refused. Domingo then filed a complaint
with the Punong Barangay of Pampanga, Buhangin District, Davao City. Manuel appeared but Domingo
did not on the schedule hearing by the Punong Bgy. Domingo was represented, however, by his wife
who said her husband wanted to avoid a direct confrontation with his brother. She requested that the
Punong Bgy issue a certification that no settlement had been reached so a complaint could be filed in
court. The Punong Bgy complied. Thereupon, Domingo sued Manuel in the RTC Davao, also for
accounting, in Civil Case No. 18560-87.
Manuel moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground of non-compliance with the requirements of
PD1508. He cited the failure of the Punong Bgy to refer the dispute to the Pangkat ng Tagapagkasundo
after the unsuccessful mediation proceedings convened by him. The motion was denied. Manuel then
filed with this Court a petition for certiorari which we referred to the CA. CA denied the petition. It held
that there was no need for such referral because Domingo had clearly indicated, by his refusal to
appear before the Punong Bgy, that no extrajudicial settlement was possible between him and his
brother. Manuel is now before us to question this decision.
HELD: The dispute should not have ended with the mediation proceedings before the Punong
Barangay because of his failure to effect a settlement. It was not for the Punong Barangay to say that
referral to the Pangkat was no longer necessary merely because he himself had failed to work out an
agreement between the parties. The Pangkat could have exerted more efforts and succeeded (where
he had not) in resolving the dispute. If the complainant refuses to appear before the Punong Barangay,
he is barred from seeking judicial recourse for the same course of action. The parties must appear in
person without assistance of counsel, except minors and incompetents

The Punong Barangay could in fact have even issued summons to compel the attendance of
Domingo Ramos, who was the complainant himself in the mediation hearing. It seems the
Punong Barangay had not tried hard enough. In any event, the certification he issued was
certainly premature and did not authorize immediate recourse to judicial action.

Private respondent is now barred from seeking judicial recourse for the same cause of action
because he is the party who did not appear to support his own complaint before the PB.

Appearance through representative not permitted by PD No. 1508. Sec. 9, PD 1508:

Appearance of parties in person. In all proceedings provided for herein, the parties must
appear in person without the assistance of counsel/representative, with the exception of minors
and incompetents who may be assisted by their next of kin who are not lawyers.

Vda. de Borromeo v. Pogoy, 126 SCRA 217 (1983):

Petitioner seeks to stop respondent Judge Pogoy of MTC Cebu from taking cognizance of an ejectment
suit for failure of the plaintiff to refer the dispute to the Bgy Lupon for conciliation.
FACTS: The intestate estate of the late Vito Borromeo is the owner of a building located at F. Ramos,
Cebu City. Said building has been leased and occupied by petitioner Petra Vda. de Borromeo at a
monthly rental of Php500. Private respondent Atty Reyes, administrator of the estate, served upon
petitioner a letter demanding that she pay the overdue rentals and thereafter vacate the premises.
Petitioner failed to do so. Atty Reyes instituted an ejectment case against the Petra in the MTC.
Petitioner moved to dismiss the case, advancing et al, the want of jurisdiction of the MTC. Petitioner
contends that the court could not exercise jurisdiction over the case for failure of Atty Reyes to refer the
dispute to the Bgy Court as required by PD1508. Respondent judge denied the MtD. After MfR was
denied, petitioner filed petitioner for Certiorari with SC. Atty Reyes admitted not having availed himself
of the bgy conciliation process, but justified such omission by citing par4, sec6 PD1508 which allows
the direct filing of an action in court where the same may otherwise be barred by the Statute of
Limitations as applying to the case at bar.
HELD: 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 social group or institution. An
intestate estate is a juridical person and not an individual. The administrator may file the complaint
directly in court.

muklo

Remedial Law Reviewer

Famador: The heirs can institute as they are successors.

San Miguel v. Pundogar, 173 SCRA 704 (1989):

FACTS: Petitioner San Miguel Village School (SMVS) entered into a contract of services with private
respondent Christina Trio, where Trio would teach at SMVS during SY1985-86 which would start
june85 and end March86. Sometime Aug85, Trio suddenly stopped teaching at SMVS without giving
notice of termination and thereby causing difficulties for SMVS. SMVS filed a complaint for breach of
contract with damages against respondent Christina Trio before RTC03 Lanao del Norte. A Certificate
to File Action, signed by the Bgy Capt of Bgy Palao, Iligan City, bearing the notation that the
respondent cannot be contacted was filed along with the complaint. Summons was served upon
private respondent thru her husband. Private respondent failed to file an answer within the
reglementary period, petitioner SMVS move to declare her in default. RTC granted the motion,
declared private respondent in default and designated the Clerk of Court to receive the evidence of the
petitioner and thereafter report back to court.
Trio filed a Petition for Relief from Judgment with the RTC, alleging that the court had no juricdiction to
render its decision for failure of petitioner to go through the mandatory conciliation procedure
prescribed by sec2&6 of PD1508. Trio argued that the certification of the Bgy Capt of Palao was
inadequate compliance with PD1508, Trio being a resident of Bgy Tomas Cabili, and not Bgy Palao.
RTC, this time presided by Judge Pundogar, issued an order upholding Trios contentions and setting
aside the assailed decision. Judge Pundogar acknowledged the impropriety of the Petition for Relief
from Judgment, he nonetheless in effect granted the relief sought, holding that the RTC in rendering the
decision, acted without jurisdiction over parties and the subject matter of the action for failure of
petitioner to comply with PD1508. A MfR by petitioner was denied by respondent judge.
HELD: Failure of a plaintiff to comply with the requirements of Katarungang Pambaranggay does not
affect the jurisdiction of the court that tried the action. Failure of a plaintiff to go through the
required conciliation procedure merely affects the sufficiency, or the maturity or ripeness of the
cause of action and the complaint becomes vulnerable to a motion to dismiss, not on the ground of
lack of jurisdiction, but rather for want of cause of action or for prematurity. Where, however, the
defendant in an action fails for one reason or another to respond to a notice to appear before the
Lupon, the requirement of conciliation proceedings must be regarded as having been satisfied
by the plaintiff. A defendant cannot be allowed to frustrate the requirements of the statute by her own
refusal or failure to appear before the Lupon and then later to assail a judgment rendered in such action
by setting up the very ground of non-compliance with conciliation proceedings. The alleged failure on
the part of a plaintiff to comply with conciliation proceedings must be raised in a timely manner, that
is, at the first available opportunity, if such alleged failure is to provide legal basis for dismissal
of the complaint. Such failure must be pleaded, in a timely motion to dismiss or in the answer. Failure
to so set up that defense produces the effect of waiver of such defense.

Where, however, the defendant in an action fails for one reason or another to respond to
a notice to appear before the Lupon, the requirement of P.D. No. 1508 must be regarded
as having been satisfied by the plaintiff. A defendant cannot be allowed to frustrate the
requirements of the statute by her own refusal or failure to appear before the Lupon and then
later to assail a judgment rendered in such action by setting up the very ground of noncompliance with P.D. No. 1508. In simplest terms, a defendant cannot be allowed to profit by her
own default.
Uy v. Contreras, 237 SCRA 167 (1994):

Petition for Certiorari under Rule65 for the order of Judge Contreras denying the petitioners MtD crim
cases for slight physical injuries. MtD is based on the failure of the private respondents, as offended
parties therein, to comply with PD1508 and sec18 of 1991 Revised Rule on Summary Procedure
requiring referral of disputes to the Lupong Tagapamayapa of the proper bgy.
FACTS: Petitioner Felicidad Uy subleased from respondent Susanna Atayde the other half of the 2 nd
floor of a building in Makati. Uy operated and maintained a beauty parlor. Sublease contract expired
but Uy was not able to remove all her movable properties.
An argument arose between Uy and Atayde when the former sought to withdraw from the subleased
premises her remaining movable properties. The argument degenerated into a scuffle between Uy and
Atayde and several of Ataydes employees.

muklo

Remedial Law Reviewer

10

After having themselves medically examined, private respondents filed a complaint with the bgy capt of
Valenzuela, Makati. Confrontation was scheduled on 28apr93 and on that day, only the petitioner
appeared. The bgy capt reset the confrontation to 26may93.
On 11may93, the Ofc of the Provincial Prosecutor filed 2 infos for SPI against petitioner with the Makati
MTC. Respondent judge ordered the petitioner to submit her counter-affidavit and those of her
witnesses. Petitioner submitted the required counter-affidavit wherein she alleged the prematurity of
the filing of the crim cases for failure to undergo conciliation proceedings as she and private
respondents are residents of Manila. She also attached a certification by the bgy capt of Valenzuela,
Makati that there was an ongoing conciliation between Atayde and Uy.
Petitioner filed MtD crim cases for non-compliance with PD1508. Judge Contreras denied MtD. Judge
Contreras held that MtD to be without sufficient merit since the offense subject to these cases occurred
in Makati; that bgy Valenzuela had started the conciliation proceedings between the parties but as of
18may93 nothing has been achieved; that the cases were filed directly with the MTC by the public
prosecutor on 11may93; and the accused and her witnesses had already filed their counter-affidavits
and docs. At this stage of the proceedings, the court believes that the accused had already waived the
right to a reconciliation proceeding before the bgy of Valenzuela considering that the accused and
complainant are residents of different bgys; that the offense charged occurred in Makati; and finally this
offense is about to prescribe. MfR for the order was denied. Hence the special civil action for certiorari.
HELD: Conciliation process at the Barangay level is a condition precedent for the filing of a complaint in
Court. Non-compliance with that condition precedent could effect 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. Pending the first mediation, no case could be validly filed with the courts. Filing of
complaint with the lupon suspends the prescriptive period for 60 days at most.
Rogie: Filing a complaint with the lupon signifies that you want to conciliate or mediate. Since filing a
case in court would signify that you want to litigate and not mediate. Therefore the conciliation should
be finished before one can file a case in court.
Escolin: Labor cases are exempt from Barangay Conciliation proceedings because the labor court has
its own experts at arriving at an amicable settlement.
Gegare v. CA, 177 SCRA 471 (1989)
this case involves a small piece of land. The decision was to cut it into 2 between the parties.
Petitioner wants the whole lot while the private respondent if happy with his half.
FACTS: a 270sq.mtr lot situated in GenSan was titled in the name of Paulino Elma. A reversion case
was filed by the Republic against Paulino and the lot was reverted to the mass of public domain subject
to disposition and giving preferential right to its actual occupant, Napoleon Gegare. Both petitioner and
private respondent filed an application for the lot in the Board of Liquidators (Board). Board resoleved
to dispose the lot in favor of petitioner by way of a negotiated sale. Private respondent protested
against the application of petitioned, then Board denied the said protest. A request for recon of private
respondent was referred by the Board to Artemio Garlit, liquidator-designee, GenSan Branch for
verification and investigation. After which, Garlit submitted a report to the Manila Ofc recommending
division of the lot to the parties. Nevertheless, the Board denied the protest because the case had
already been decided by the court.
However, a MfR filed by private respondent was favorably considered by the Board. Board directed the
chief of LASEDECO to investigate the occupancy and area of the lot. Findings were that only private
respondent was the actual occupant so the LASEDECO chief recommended the division of the
property.
Both parties appealed to the Ofc of the President but both appeals were dismiss. A MfR filed by
petitioner was denied on 29may84
Private respondent paid for the value of of the lot and applied for the issuance of a patent. Patent
was issued to portion of the lot. Petitioner was also adviced to file his application and pay his
portion.
Petitioner filed an action for Annulment and Cancellation of Partition and/or to Declare them Null and
Void against private respondent and the Board.
Private respondent filed MtD the complaint on the grounds et al (5) lack of conciliation efforts
pursuant to sec6 PD1508. The motion was granted.
Petitioner MfR thereof to which an opposition was filed by private respondent. MfR was granted and
private respondent was required to file his responsive pleading. Private respondent filed his answer.

muklo

Remedial Law Reviewer

11

On 24jul86, private respondent asked for a prelim hearing of the grounds for the MtD in his affirmative
defenses. This was denied.
Private respondent filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition in the CA questioning the said orders of
the trial court. CA granted the petition, declaring the questioned orders null and void, and directing the
trial court to dismiss the civil case for lack of jurisdiction. MfR filed by petitioner was denied. Thus, the
herein petition.
HELD: Where the case involves residents of the same barangay, it must comply with conciliation
proceedings even if a government instrumentality is one of the defendants. If the other only adverse
party is the government or its instrumentality or subdivision, the case falls within the exception. But
when the government instrumentality is only one of multiple adverse parties, a confrontation
should still be undertaken among the other parties.

Galuba v. Laureta, 157 SCRA 627 (1988):

HELD: The amicable settlement and arbitration award shall have the force and effect of a final
judgment of a court upon the expiration of the 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. Having failed to repudiate the amicable settlement within the 10-day period,
petitioner is left with no recourse but to abide by its terms.