ANNOTATION

AN ANNOTATION ON BARANGAY CONCILIATION

By
ALICIA GONZALEZ-DECANO*
_____________________

One of the questions of law raised on appeal before the

Supreme Court in the above entitled case is whether or not
the Certification dated July 18, 2002 issued by the
Barangay Lupon stating that no settlement was reached by
the parties on the matter of rental increase is sufficient to
comply with the prior conciliation requirement under the
Katarungang Pambarangay Law to authorize respondents
to institute the ejectment suit against the petitioner.
The Supreme Court ruled in this wise:
x x x While it is true that the Certification to file
action dated 18th January, 2002 of the Barangay
Lupon refers only to rental increase and not to the
ejectment of petitioner from this subject property, the
submission of the same for conciliation before the
Barangay Lupon constitutes sufficient compliance
with the provisions of the Katarungang Pambarangay
Law. Given the particular circumstances of the case at
bar, the conciliation proceedings for the amount of
monthly rental should logically and reasonably
include also the matter of the possession of the
property subject of the rental, the
_______________
* Dean, College of Law & Law Professor, Pan Pacific University North
Philippines (PUNP), Urdaneta City and Professorial Lecturer IV and
Consultant (Law and Political Science Cluster, UST Graduate School.)
718

718

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

An Annotation on Barangay Conciliation

lease agreement, and the violation of the terms

thereof.
In fact, there are some decisions of the Supreme Court
which will substantiate the view that non-compliance with
the condition that the parties undergo conciliation process
under the Katarungang Pambarangay Law as a condition
to filing a complaint in court, does not prevent a court of
competent jurisdiction from exercising the power of
adjudication over a case unless the defendants object
therein.
Hence, the relevant cases are hereunder quoted:
Relevant Cases:
1.Junson vs. Martinez, G.R. No. 141324, July 18, 2003,
405 SCRA 395 deals among others, on the barangay
conciliation: The Supreme Court mandated:
x x x On the barangay reconciliation issue, the
conciliation procedure requirement under P.D. 1508 is
not a jurisdictional requirement in the sense that
failure to have prior recourse to it does not deprive
the court of its jurisdiction, either over the subject
matter or over the person of the defendant x x x. This
is taken from the ruling of the Supreme Court in the
case of Ebol vs. Amin, 135 SCRA 438 [1985] and
Millare vs. Hernando, 151 SCRA 484 [1987].
The Supreme Court continued:
x x x Non-compliance with the condition
precedent under the said law does not prevent a court
of competent jurisdiction from exercising its power of
adjudication over a case where defendants fail to
object to such exercise of jurisdiction x x x. This
ruling was just a reiteration from the case of
719

VOL. 562, AUGUST 20, 2008

719

An Annotation on Barangay Conciliation

Gonzales vs. Court of Appeals (151 SCRA 289 [1987])
The Supreme Court further emphasized:
x x x But such objection should be seasonably
made before the court first taking cognizance of the

complaint and must be raised in the Answer, or in

such other pleading allowed under the Rules of Court
x x x
These rulings were earlier enunciated in the cases of
Royales vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, 127 SCRA 470
[1984] and Garces vs. Court of Appeals, 162 SCRA 504
[1988].
2.Espino vs Legarda, G.R. No. 149266, 485 SCRA 76
[2006] refers again to the provisions of the Katarungang
Pambarangay Law, now repealed by R.A. No. 7160, the
Local Government Code of 1991, Sections 399-422 and 515,
which took effect on January 1, 1992.
The Supreme Court theorized:
x x x The main issue for our resolution is whether
respondent
complied
with
the
Katarungang
Pambarangay Law providing for a conciliation before
any complaint, petition, action, or proceeding
involving any matter within the authority of the
Lupon of the barangay shall be filed or instituted in
court.
The Supreme Court discussed:
x x x Records show that respondent referred the
dispute to the barangay for conciliation proceedings
prior to the filing of the complaint with the lower
court.
720

720

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

An Annotation on Barangay Conciliation

The Certification states:

Nevertheless, no such settlement took place or
was possible in view of the repeated refusal of the
same persons to meet with Miss Legarda or her
personal representatives, Mr. Antonio O. Sison,
despite several summons issued to them by the
undersigned x x x.
The Supreme Court further enunciated:
x x x As correctly stated by the Court of Appeals,
the act of the barangay chairman in issuing the
certification enjoys the presumption that his official
duty has been regularly performed, absent any
evidence to the controversy. Further, the defendantsappellants did not object to the presentation of the

certification. Neither did they question said

certification x x x
The Supreme Court further ordered:
x x x Even assuming that respondent did not refer
the dispute to the barangay for conciliation, still the
trial court could take cognizance of the case
considering that petitioners here did not object to
such lack of conciliation during the hearing. x x x
3.In the case of Esguerra vs. Trinidad, G.R. No.
169890, March 12, 2007, 508 SCRA 186, the Supreme
Court decreed among others that non-compliance with the
condition that the parties undergo a conciliation process
under the Katarungang Pambarangay, as a precondition to
filing a complaint in court, does not prevent a court of
competent jurisdiction from exercising its power of
adjudication over a case unless the defendants object
thereto.
721

VOL. 562, AUGUST 20, 2008

721

An Annotation on Barangay Conciliation

Thus, the Supreme Court articulated:
x x x A word on Republic Act No. 7160, which was
raised by petitioners in their petition. It expressly
requires the parties to undergo a conciliation process.
Under the Katarungang Pambarangay, as a
precondition to filing a complaint in court, noncompliance with this condition precedent does not
prevent a court of competent jurisdiction from
exercising its power of adjudication over a case unless
the defendants object thereto. The objection should be
seasonably made before the Court first taking
cognizance of the complaint, and must be raised in
the Answer or in such other pleadings allowed under
the Rules of Court x x x This ruling was earlier
enunciated in the case of Espino vs. Legarda (supra.)
The Supreme Court further ruled:
x x x While petitioners admittedly failed to comply
with the requirement of barangay conciliation, they
assert that respondents waived such objection when
they failed to raise it in their answer. Contrary to
petitioners claim, however, the records reveal that
respondents raised their objection in their amended

answers filed in the both cases.

Concluding Statement:
At the outset, it was stated that the Barangay
Certification stating that no settlement was reached by the
parties on the matter of rental increase, was a sufficient
compliance of the requirement under the Katarungang
Pambarangay, although the other main issue is ejectment
because of the withholding of the possession by the
respondents. The Supreme Court expanded the coverage of
the conciliation before the barangay
722

722

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

An Annotation on Barangay Conciliation

by saying that the conciliation proceedings for the amount

of monthly rental should logically include the matter of
the possession of the property subject of the rental x x x.
Thus, in the cases cited, it can be gleaned that the
submission of the case to the barangay, although there was
no actual conciliation done, due to the absence of his
defendant, is a substantial compliance of the provisions of
R.A. 7160 amending P.D. 1508 filed by the respondents.
o0o

Copyright 2016 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.