BARANGAY CONCILIATION (R.A. NO. 7160)
where the action may be barred by the statute of
Katarungang Pambarangay Law - provides for the settlement of
disputes between individual residents of the same city or
municipality, thru mediation arbitration or conciliation before the
Katarungang Pambarangay. Compliance therewith is a condition
precedent to the filing of a complaint or information in court or
before the Fiscal's Office, and its absence is a ground for dismissal of
the complaint for prematurity or absence of a cause of action
Cases over which the lupon of each barangay may take cognizance
of
The lupon of each barangay shall have authority to bring together
the parties actually residing in the same municipality or city 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 1 year or a fine
exceeding 5000
d. offenses where there is no private offended party
e. where the disputes involve 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 municipalites except where such barangay unites
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
h. any complaint by or against corporations, partnerships, or
juridical entities. The reason is that only individuals shall be parties
to barangay conciliation proceedings either as complainants or
respondents
i. dispute where urgent legal action is necessary to prevent injustice
from being committed or further continued, specifically the
following:
a. a criminal case where the accused is under police
custody or detention
b. a petition for habeas corpus by a person illegally
detained or deprived of his liberty or one acting in his behalf
c. actions coupled with provisional remedies, such as
preliminary injunction, attachment, replevin, and support pendente
lite
d.
limitations
j. labor disputes or controversies arising from employer-employee
relationship
k. where the dispute arises from CARL
l. actions to annul judgment upon a compromise which can be filed
directly in court
May a corporation be impleaded as a party to a barangay
conciliation proceeding?
No, a corporation cannot be impleaded as a party to a barangay
conciliation proceeding. Katarungang Pambarangay Rules provided
that only individuals shall be parties to these proceedings either as
complainants or respondents. No complaint by or against
corporations, partnerships or other juridical entities shall be filed,
received or acted upon
What are the rules on venue under the law governing barangay
conciliation?
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 diff barangays within the same
municipality or city shall be broight in the barangay where the
repondent or any of the respondents actually resides, at the election
of the complainant
c. all disputes involving real property or 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 or
workplace or institution is located
Unlawful detainer was filed before MTC- Baguio without barangay
conciliation. MTD was filed on the ground of failure to comply with
the requirement of conciliation alleging that both parties are
residents of Baguio, although the complaint stated that the
defendant has a postal office address in Baguio. Decide.
If I were the judge, I would decide in favor of the petitioner that
there is no need to comply with the conciliation requirement under
the Katarungang Pambarangay Law in the absence of showing in the
complaint that the parties reside in the same city or municipality.
The complaint clearly implies that the parties do not reside in the
same city or municipality because the postal office address is not
included in the term "residence". In procedural law, residence of a
person is his personal, actual or physical habitation or his legal
residence or domicile.
A, a permanent resident of US, executed an SPA in favor of B to
recover his property from C. B, the agent and C are both resident of
same barangay. A complaint was filed without undergoing Brgy
conciliation. MTD was filed by C on the ground that it is premature.
He contended that all disputes involving real property or any
interest therein shall be brought in the brgy where the property is
located. Decide.
The contention of A is correct. There is no need for barangay
conciliation. If the parties are not actual residents in the same city or
municipality or adjoining barangays, there is no requirement for
them to submit their dispute to the lupon
Since A, the real party in interest, is not an actual resident of the
barangay where the defendant resides, the local lupon has no
jurisdiction over their dispute, hence, prior referral to it for
conciliation is not a pre-condition to its filing in court
Ejectment case was filed by parties residing in different cities. Is
barangay conciliation a pre-condition?
No. Referral to conciliation proceeding is only required when real
parties-in-interest are residents of the same city or municipality.
Here, the complaint filed with MTC specifically alleged that the
parties reside in different barangays, hence, the rule does not apply.
The only exception to this rule, is when the barangays are adjacent
to one another even if they are located in different cities, absence of
which, no barangay conciliation is needed
Residence must be more or less permanent. SC held that actual
residence should not be temporary or transient.
Where should objections to venue be raised under RA No. 7160?
Objections to venue shall be raised in the mediation proceedings
before the punong barangay, otherwise, the same shall be deemed
waived
If there are legal questions which may confront the punong
barangay in resolving the objections to venue, such question may be
submitted to the Secretary of Justice or his duly designated
representatives whose ruling thereon shall be binding
What is the nature of the non-referral of a case to the barangay
where the law requires it?
The non-referral of a case for barangay conciliation when so
required under the law, is not jurisdictional in nature, and may
therefore be deemed waived if not raised seasonably in a MTD. This
is a mere condition precedent which if not invoked in a MTD, it is
deemed waived
Non-compliance with the condition precedent under PD 1508 does
not prevent a court of competent jurisdiction from exercising its
power of adjudication over a case where the defendants failed to
object to such exercise of jurisdiction
How does the complaint be filed with Lupon?
Upon payment of the appropriate filing fee, any individual who has a
cause of action against another individual involving any matter
which the authority of lupon may complaint, orally or in writing, to
the luponm chairman of the barangay
Upon the 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 witness to appear before him for
a mediation of their conflicting interests. If he fails in his mediation
effort within 15 days from the first meeting of the parties before
him, he shall forthwith set a date for the constitution of the pangkat
The pangkat shall arrive at a settlement or a resolution of the
dispute within 15 days from the day it convenes. This period shall, at
the discretion of the pangkat, be extendible for another period
which shall not exceed 15 days, except in clearly meritorious cases
What is the effect of the pendency of a case before the lupon on
the prescriptive period of actions?
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 certificate of repudiation or the
certification to file such action issued by the lupon or pangkat
secretary: Provided, however, that such interruption shall not
exceed 60 days from the filing of the complaint with the punong
barangay
Is there any form for the settlement of dispute?
Yes. 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, as the case may be. When the parties to the dispute
do not use the same language, the settlement shall be written in the
language known to them
May a complaint which involves matters within the authority of the
lupon be filed in court without passing through the lupon?
Generally, No. No complaint, 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 and attested by the lupon chairman or pangkat
chairman or unless the settlement has been repudiated by the
parties thereto
A filed for ejectment case against B, his tenant before MTC Manila
without first having recourse at the barnagay. Would the case be
dismissed?
Yes, the action should be dismissed for prematurity. It is clear that
both plaintiff and defendant are residents of Manila. The complaint
contained no certification of the appropriate barangay authority to
file action. Plaintiff's contention that resort to prior brgy conciliation
was not required because defendant merely stayed in the
apartment 5 days a week as his work was in Manila, his residence
being in Cavite is untenable. Staying 5 days a week is sufficient to
constitute actual residence. The barangay law does not require legal
residence or domicile
X filed an ejectment complaint with MTC without certification by
the brgy having been issued despite the prior filing of a case in said
brgy. A few days later, he filed a manifestation in a court attaching
thereto a certification subsequently issued by the barangay. What
is the effect of the subsequent issuance of the certification?
The issuance of the certification to file the action subsequently
made is a substantial compliance with the requirements of PD 1508
which cures the defect
What if the defendant does not invoke the lack of prior conciliation
before the brgy?
It is an implied waiver of the condition. Such waiver also takes place
where MTD is filed after an answer has been filed within the period
to plead and before an answer is filed. Furthermore, the Rules of
Court provide that defenses and objections not raised in a MTD or in
the answer are deemed waived
May a case or proceeding be filed directly in court without passing
the lupon?
Yes, because the requirement is not absolute. XPNs are:
1. where the accused is under detention
2. where a person has otherwise been deprived of personal liberty
calling for habeas corpus proceeding
3. where actions are coupled with provisional remedies such as
preliminary injunction, attachment, delivery of personal property,
and support pendente lite
4. where the action may otherwise be barred by the statute of
limitations
In a complaint for annulment of a deed of extra-judicial settlement
of estate, two parties are residents of the same municipality, but
the others are residents of different municipalities. Is there a need
for prior brgy conciliation?
No more. In one case, SC held that the fact that the some of the
parties are residents of the same municipality will not justify
compulsory conciliation under PD 1508, it appearing that other
parties are resident of diff municipalities. Petitioners can file directly
in court without resorting to brgy conciliation
When can there be waiver of the defense of prematurity for failure
to comply with the brgy conciliation?
if the parties failed to object the correction of residence of
petitioners and when they took part of the trial, argued their case
and adduced their evidence
X filed a case against Y for the dissolution of the CPG. Y filed a MTD
for failure to comply with brgy conciliation proceeding. Decide.
MTD should be dismissed. Under RA 7610, actions coupled with
provisional remedies such as preliminary injunction, attachment,
delivery of personal property and support pendente lite may be filed
directly in court without prior recourse to brgy conciliation.
X file a complaint for recovery of real property against Y. Property
is located in laguna where X is a resident however Y is from Rizal. Is
there a need for prior recourse to the brgy conciliation?
No. It has been held in one of the cases decided by SC that where a
real property is the subject if the dispute and it is located in the
same brgy in the same town but the parties are residents of diff
municipalities in barangays not adjacent to each other, proir
recourse to brgy conciliation is not necessary
If a person files a suit respecting his civil status, is there a need for
prior barangay conciliation?
There is no need. In one of the cases decided by the SC, it was said
that in cases involving the civil status of a person - such as one filed
by a natural child to compel his acknowledgement - is not among
the cases where prior resort to brgy conciliation is necessary.
If the parties belong to the cultural minorites, what rules shall the
pangkat apply?
The customs and traditions of indigenous cultural communities shall
be applied in settling disputes between members of the cultural
communities
What is the requirement of the law with respect to the appearance
of the parties before the lupon or pangkat?
The law requires that in all katarungang pambarangay proceedings,
the parties must appear in person without assistance of counsel or
representative, except for minors and incompetents who may be
assisted by their next of kin who are not lawyers
But if the lawyer is the party involved, he must appear
What is the effect of settlement before the lupon or pangkat?
The amicable settlement and arbitration award shall have the force
and effect of final judgment of a court upon the expiration of 10
days from the date thereof, unless repudiation has been made or a
petition to nullify the award has been filed before the proper city or
municipal court
Repudiation is made 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 within 10 days from the date of the
settlement
Such repudiation shall be sufficient basis for the issuance of the
certification for filing a complaint
The amicable settlement or arbitration award may be enforced by
execution by the lupon within 6 months from the date of
settlement. After the lapse of such time, the settlement may be
enforced by action in the appropriate city or municipal court
Six months should be counted from the date of the settlement,
otherwise, if the obligation to be enforced is due and demandable
on a date other than the date of the settlement, the 6-month period
should be counted from the date the obligation becomes due and
demandable
X filed a complaint against Y. They have settled the dispute before
the lupon howeverY filed an action to annul the agreement
contending that his consent was obtained by mistake or fraud. X
filed MTD on the ground of lack of cause of action as Y did not
repudiate the compromise within 10 day. Rule.
MTD should be granted. The parties are bound by the compromise
agreement since the same was not repudiated by either one of them
within 10 days from the date of signing. Resort to court is possible
only after the party has first repudiated the compromise agreement
which is a prerequisite to judicial action
A compromise agreement between A and B was entered into MTC
in an ejectment suit. An action to annul the judgment was filed in
the RTC for failure to resort to brgy conciliation. Is the contention
correct?
No. It cannot be dismissed on the ground of prematurity or failure to
resort to brgy conciliation because a compromise is immediately
executory and beyond the authority of the brgy. An admin body like
the lupon cannot overturn the judgment of a court
What is the remedy of the denial of the MTD on the ground of non-
compliance with the Katarungang Pambarangay Law?
Appeal from the decision. Since the dismissal is a final order, it is
appeallable. Certiorari is not the proper remedy because it is a
prohibited petition or pleading under the Rules on Summary
Procedure
Is it necessary that the settlement be transmitted to the proper
MTC?
Yes. The Secretary of Lupon is mandated to transmit the settlement
to the appropriate city or municipal court within the time frame
under LGC and to furnish the parties and the Lupon Chairman with
copies thereof
What are the mechanisms provided for by the law for the
enforcement of the settlement before the Lupon?
a. by execution of the Punong Barnagay which is a quasi-judicial and
summary in nature on mere motion of the parties entitled thereto
b. by an action in regular forum, which remedy is judicial
There was a contract lease of a fishpond. Typhoon destroyed the
fish pond. The lessor undertook the repairs. Lessee complained
about unauthorized repairs. Before the brgy, they entered into a
compromise where the lessor would refund 150K. The lessor did not
pay hence the lessee filed for collection of money against the RTC.
On appeal, it was contended that the lessee failed to comply with
the procedure in implementing the compromise before the brgy. Is
the contention correct?
No. The Revised Katarungang Pambarangay Law provides that an
amicable settlement reached after barangay conciliation proceeding
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 10 days from its date.
The settlement may be enforced by execution by the lupong
tagapamayapa within 6 months from its date, or by action in the
appropriate city or municipal court, if beyond the 6-month period
The aggieved party may, if he chooses, bring the suit contemplated
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
There was a compromise in the brgy. For failure to comply with the
terms and conditions, a Motion for Execution was filed with the
MTC, rather than a complaint for execution. It however contained
ultimate facts consisting a cause of action, attaching thereto the
compromise whose body was quoted. Is the Motion for Execution
proper in form and substance?
Yes. It is a well-settled that what are controlling in determining the
nature of the pleading are the allegations in the body and not the
caption
Thus, the motion for execution filed was intended to be an initiatory
pleading or an original action that is compliant with the requirement
under Sec 3, Rule 6 that the complaint should allege the plaintiff's
cause of action and the names and residences of the plaintiff and
the defendant
The motion could therefore be treated as an original action, and not
merely as a motion/special proceeding.
Does the MCTC have the authority to enforce the kasunduan before
the brgy regardless of the amount involved?
Yes. LGC provides that after the lapse of 6 months from the date of
the settlement, the agreement may be enforced by action in the
appropriate city or municipal court
There was no distinction with respect to the amount involved or the
nature of the issue involved. This, the MTC can acquire jurisdiction
over enforcement of the kasunduan regardless of the amount