KATARUNGANG

Katarungang PAMBARANGAY
Pambarangay o Prepared by the Punong Barangay
within 15 days of the start of his
Governing Law term.
o Posted in 3 conspicuous places in
the barangay continuously for a
Significant Changes period of not less than 3 weeks.
PD 1508 LGC 1991  The appointment
Authority of 30 DAYS 1 YEAR o When here is no opposition and
Lupon for Php200.00 Php5,000.00 after considering
Criminal recommendations, within 10 days
offenses after the period of posting, the PB
Venue None workplace or shall appoint the members.
educational  Functions of the Lupon
institutions o Exercise administrative supervision
shall be filed in over the conciliation panels to be
the barangay created
where such is o Meet regularly once a month for a
located forum of exchange

Prescriptive None Suspended Pangkat ng Tagapagkasundo

Period of during the  A conciliation panel
Offenses pendency of  Chosen by the parties from the list of
the mediation members from the lupon
or conciliation  In case the parties cannot agree among
or arbitration each other, the same shall be determined
process by lots drawn by the lupon chaitrman
 The 3 members shall elect from
themselves the chairman and secretary.
Lupong Tagapamayapa  Secretary shall:
 Composition o Keep the minutes of the pangkat
o Chairman: Punong Barangay proceeding
o Members: 10-20 persons o Submit a copy attested by the chair
 Constituted every 3 years by the Lupong to the lupon secretary and proper
Barangay city or municipal. court
 Qualifications:  The lupon secretary shall
o Risiding or working in the barangay issue certified copies of
o Not expressly disqualified by law public record
o Possessing integrity, impartiality,
independence of mind Subject Matter for Amicable Settlement
o Sense of fairness, and reputation (Section 408, LGC 1991)
for probity
 NOTICE GR: The lupon of each barangay shall have
o Include the names of the members authority to bring together the parties actually
who are willing to join residing in the same city or municipality for
amicable settlement of all disputes. The law does
not make any distinction.
Except: VENUE (Section 409)
a) Where one party is the government
(subdivision or instrumentality); Where
b) One party is a public officer or employee, Same Brgy Lupon of said
relating to the performance of his official barangay
functions; Different Brgy, brought in the
c) Imprisonment exceeding one (1) year or a within same barangay where
fine exceeding P5,000.00; city/mun the respondent
d) Offenses where there is no private or any of the
offended party; respondents
e) Dispute involves real properties located in actually resides,
different cities or municipalities unless the at the election of
parties thereto agree amicably settle; the complaint
f) Parties who actually reside in barangays of Real Property Shall be brought
different cities or municipalities, except in the barangay
where such barangay units adjoin each where the real
other and the parties agree to submit to property or the
amicable settlement; larger portion
g) Disputes which the President may thereof is situated.
determine in the interest of Justice or upon Workplace where Shall be brought
the recommendation of the Secretary of employed in or in the barangay
Justice. institution where where such
enrolled for study. workplace or
The court in which non-criminal cases not institution is
falling within the authority of the lupon located.
under this Code are filed may, at any time
before trial motu propio refer the case to Objections to venue shall be raised in the
the lupon concerned for amicable mediation proceedings before the punong
settlement. barangay; otherwise, the same shall be deemed
waived.
Exception to the Exception:
The parties agree to amicably settle. Any legal question which may confront the
punong barangay in resolving objections to
Those incapable of settlement according to Art venue herein referred to may be submitted to the
2035, 2034, NCC Secretary of Justice, or his duly designated
o Civil Status of the Person representative, whose ruling thereon shall be
o The validity of a marriage or legal binding.
separation
o Ground for legal separation Procedure for Amicable Settlement
o Future support Who may initiate proceeding: Any individual who
o The jurisdiction of courts; has a cause of action against another individual
o Future legitime and involving any matter within the authority of the
o Criminal liability lupon, after paying filling fees.
Compromise agreements on these are null and
void Form: orally or in writing, to the lupon chairman
of the barangay.

• Filing of Complaint and

payment of filing fee
 Spouses Morata v Spouses Go
GR L-62339, Oct 27, 1983
The “ONLY in the MTC level” CASE

FACTS: On August 25, 1982, the spouses Go

filed a complaint against petitioners Morata for
recovery of a sum of money plus damages
amounting to P49,400.
On the basis of the allegation that the parties-
litigants are all residents of Cebu City, petitioner
filed a motion to dismiss citing as grounds the
failure of the complaint to allege prior availment
by the plaintiffs of the barangay conciliation
process required by PD 1508, as well as the
absence of certification by the Lupon or Pangkat
Secretary that no conciliation/settlement has
been reached by the parties.
The motion to dismiss was denied.

ISSUE:
Whether the conciliation process at the barangay
level, prescribed by PD 1508 as a precondition for
filing a complaint in court, is also compulsory for
actions cognizable by the RTC.

HELD:
Thus, except in the instances enumerated in
Secs. 2 and 6 of the law, 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 whatsoever with
respect to the classes of civil disputes that should
be compromised at the barangay level. Where the
law does not distinguish, we should not
distinguish.

By compelling the disputants to settle their

differences through the intervention of the
barangay leader and other respected members of
the barangay, the animosity generated by
protracted court litigations between members of
the same political unit, a disruptive factor toward
unity and cooperation, is avoided. It must be
borne in mind that the conciliation process at the
barangay level is also designed to discourage
indiscriminate filing of cases in court in order to
decongest its clogged dockets and enhance the
quality of justice dispensed by it.
Therefore, the conciliation process at the
barangay level, prescribed by P.D. 1508 as a pre-
condition for filing a complaint in court, is
compulsory not only for cases falling under the
exclusive competence of the metropolitan and
municipal trial courts, but for actions cognizable
by the regional trial courts as well.
Form of Settlement (Section 411)
All amicable settlements shall be
■ in writing,
■ in a language or dialect known to the
parties,
■ signed by them, and
■ attested to by the lupon chairman or the
pangkat chairman, as the case may be.
When the parties to the dispute do not use the
same language or dialect, the settlement shall be
written in the language known to them.
CONCILIATION
GR: if the action falls within the authority of the
lupon, it shall not 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.
EXCEPT:
The parties may go directly to court in the
following instances:
1. Where the accused is under detention;
2. Where a person has otherwise been
deprived of personal liberty calling for
habeas corpus proceedings;
3. Where actions are coupled with provisional
remedies such as preliminary injunction,
attachment, delivery of personal property
and support pendente lite; and
4. Where the action may otherwise be barred
by the statute of limitations.
Conciliation among members of indigenous
cultural communities. - The customs and
traditions of indigenous cultural communities shall
be applied in settling disputes between members
of the cultural communities. (SECTION 412)
-0-
Peregrina v Panis
133 SCRA 72, GR L-56011, Oct. 31, 1984
The “I conveniently forgot to file a provisional remedy”
CASE
FACTS: Spouses Sanchez filed a Civil Action for
Damages against Petitioners Peregrina for
alleged defamation. Parties are from the same
barangay so petitioners moved to dismiss the
case. Before filing an opposition, Spouses
Sanchez applied for a Writ of Preliminary
Attachment, after which they presented their
Opposition. Respondent judge granted the MTD,
but upon MR, Judge DENIED the MTD Dismiss
on the ground that under Rule 57, Sec.1 of the
Rules of Court, the application for attachment can
be made at the commencement of the action or
any time thereafter.
ISSUE: WON the seasonable filing of the
Provisionary Remedy successfully excluded the
case from the ambit of BRGY conciliation
HELD: NO. Non-compliance with that condition
precedent could affect the sufficiency of the
plaintiff’s cause of action and make his complaint
vulnerable to dismissal on the ground of lack of
cause of action or prematurity. The condition is
analogous to exhaustion of administrative
remedies. Not only was the application for that
remedy merely an afterthought to circumvent
the law, but also, a writ of attachment is not
available in a suit for damages where the
amount, including moral damages, is
contingent or unliquidated.
--0--
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.
All proceedings for settlement shall be public and
informal
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. (SECTION 415)
Atty. Magno v Atty Jacoba
AC No. 6296, Nov 22, 2005
The “atty vs atty” Case
FACTS: Atty. Magno charged Atty. Jacoba w/
willful violation of the Sec. 415 of the LGC of 1991
& Canon 4 of the CPR as the latter allegedly acted
as the Lawyer of Lorenzo Inos for land dispute
Atty. Magno was the niece of Lorenzo Inos & they
had a disagreement over landscaping contract
they entered into w/c was brought before the
Brgy. Captain of San Pascual, Talavera, Nueva
Ecija
At the Brgy. Conciliation: Atty. Jacoba clothed w/
SPA from Inos appeared for the latter
accompanied by his son, Lorenzito w/c was
objected by Atty. Magno.
ISSUE: W/N respondent can validly represent the
Inos in a Brgy. Conciliation?
HELD: NO
Sec. 415 of the LGC –KPL - appearance of parties
in person is mandatory w/o the assistance of
counsel except for minors incompetent who may
be assisted by their next of kin who are not
lawyers
Prohibition – applies to all KB proceedings ===
Sec. 412 (a) of the LGC clearly provides that as a
precondition to the filing of a complaint in court,
the parties shall go through the conciliation
process either before the lupon chairman or the
lupon/pangkat tagapamayapa
Effect of Amicable Settlement and Arbitration
Award
The amicable settlement and arbitration award
shall have the force and effect of a final
judgment of a court upon the expiration of ten
(10) days from the date thereof,
unless
■ repudiation of the settlement has been
made or
■ a petition to nullify the award has been filed
before the proper city or municipal court.
However, this provision shall not apply to court
cases settled by the lupon under the last
paragraph of Section 408 of this Code, in which
case the compromise or the pangkat chairman
shall be submitted to the court and upon approval
thereof, have the force and effect of a judgment of
said court. (SECTION 416)
Quiros v Arjona
GR 158901, March 9, 2004
The “wala nagkasinabot sa property” Case
FACTS: Petitioners filed a case for recovery of
ownership and possession. The parties reached
a settlement entitled PAKNAAN, however,
Petitioner failed to include a written document
describing the property. Petitioners tried to apply
for a writ of execution however it was denied,
hence, this petition.
ISSUE: WON the amicable settlement attains the
status of finality where there is no repuditation.
HELD: Yes, but there are exemptions, case at bar.
Petition denied.
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. In
the case at bar, the ends of justice would be
frustrated if a writ of execution is issued
considering the uncertainty of the object of the
agreement. To do so would open the possibility of
error and future litigations.
It appears that while the paknaan was prepared
and signed by respondent, petitioners acceded to
the terms by not disputing the contents and now
seeking its enforcement. The cause of the
contract is the delivery of the petitioner’s share in
the inheritance. The inability of the municipal
court to identify the exact location of the property
did not negate the principal object of the contract.
Respondent cannot, as an afterthought, be
allowed to renege on his legal obligation to
transfer the property to its rightful heirs. A
refusal to reform the Paknaan under such
circumstances would have the effect of penalizing
one party for negligent conduct, and at the same
time permitting the other party to escape the
consequences of his negligence and profit
thereby.
--0--
EXECUTION
The amicable settlement or arbitration award may
be enforced by execution by the lupon within six
(6) months from the date of the settlement. After
the lapse of such time, the settlement may be
enforced by action in the appropriate city or
municipal court. (SECTION 417)
Vidal v Escueta
GR 156228, Dec. 10, 2003
The “Execution” Case
FACTS:
Abelardo Escueta died leaving his wife, their 6
children, respondent respondent Ma. Teresa O.
Escueta and her brother Herman O. Escueta. Part
of the property left behind is agricultural land
leased to a certain Rainier Llanera. Respondent
Teresa filed an ejectment case against Rainier
and the sub-leasees. The heirs later on sold the
property to Mary Santos. In order to settle, the
heirs, Llanera and the sub-leasees executed an
Amicable Settlement on May 5, 1999. Because
the subleasees kept postponing to vacate the
property, the settlement was not implemented.
Instead of filing an action for ejectment, they filed
a Motion for Execution, which was opposed to by
the Petitioners.
ISSUE: When the reckoning period is.
HELD: DENIED.
The amicable settlement which is not repudiated
within the period therefor may be enforced by
execution by the Lupon through the Punong
Barangay within a time line of six months, and if
the settlement is not so enforced by the Lupon
after the lapse of the said period, it may be
enforced only by an action in the proper city or
municipal court as provided for in Section 417 of
the LGC of 1991
The Local Governement Code provides for two-
tiered mode to execute the judgement:
By execution of the Punong Barangay, which is
quasi judicial and Summary in nature. Covered by
the LGC and the Katarungang Pambarangay. The
Punong Baranagy is called upon the hearing to
determine solely the fact of non-compliance and
to give the defaulting party another chance to
comply.
By an action in regular form which remedy is
judicial.. Covered by the ROC. The cause of
action is the amicable settlement itself, which by
law has the force and effect of a final judgement.
The general rule for the computation of the 6
months is from the date of settlement. But
because of the circumstances of this case,
applying such rule would be unjust. Thus, it was
ruled:
■ If the settlement to be enforced is due and
demandable on the date of settlement,
count from the settlement.
■ If D&D on a date other than the date of
settlement, the period should be counted
from the date the obligation becomes D&D.
The parties executed their Amicable Settlement
on May 5, 1999. However, the petitioners were
obliged to vacate the property only in January,
2000, or seven months after the date of the
settlement; hence, the respondent may enforce
the settlement through the Punong Barangay
within six months from January 2000 or until June
2000, when the obligation of the petitioners to
vacate the property became due. The respondent
was precluded from enforcing the settlement via
an action with the MTC before June 2000.
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.
(SECTION 418)
Effect of refusal or failure of any party or witness
to appear before the lupon or pangkat
■ It may be punished for indirect contempt of
court upon the application filed by lupon
chairman, pangkat chairman, or any of
contending parties.
■ Refusal or failure shall be reflected in the
records of the lupon secretary or the
minutes of the pangkat secretary.
■ It shall bar the complainant who fails to
appear from seeking judicial recourse for
the same cause of action
■ The respondent, who refuses to appear,
is barred from filing any counterclaim
arising out of, or necessarily connected
with the complaint.
A pangkat member, who serves as such, is
entitled to an honorarium
 University of Cebu
School of Law

In partial fulfillment of the Subject Course

Public Corporation Law

A Guide to
The Katarungang Pambarangay Law

Submitted by: Carmela C. Guibone

Submitted to: Atty. Ria Espina, CPA

April 4, 2019