Professional Documents
Culture Documents
(Part I of IX)
muklo
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 municipality barangay where the/a option of the complainant within the same city or respondent resides, at the
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
muklo
period which shall not exceed fifteen (15) days, except in clearly meritorious cases.
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 pangkat secretary to file action issued by the lupon or
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
muklo
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. Repudiation of 1. Agreement to arbitrate within 5 days from agreement to arbitrate (Sec. 413) 2. Arbitration award within 10 days, action arbitration award with the MTC (Sec. 416) for annulment of
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 expiration of ten
muklo
(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
muklo
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 juridical entities, since only individuals shall be parties Barangay conciliation proceedings either as complainants respondents (Sec. 1, Rule VI, Katarungang Pambarangay Rules); or to or
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); 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 employeremployee 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).
muklo
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. 11. Actions coupled with provisional remedies 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: 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
muklo
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 Chairman, certifying that: and attested by the Pangkat
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 pre-condition 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
muklo
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.
***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 2. suspension of proceedings upon petition of any party 3. refer the case motu proprio to the appropriate Barangay authority
muklo
10
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.
muklo
11
recourse for the same course of action. The parties must appear in person without assistance of counsel, except minors and incompetents.
muklo
12
the relief sought, holding acted without jurisdiction the action for failure of by petitioner was denied by
that the RTC in rendering the decision, over parties and the subject matter of petitioner to comply with PD1508. A MfR 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.
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. 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
muklo
13
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 conciliate or mediate. Since that you want to litigate conciliation should be finished the lupon signifies that you want to filing a case in court would signify and not mediate. Therefore the 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.
14
pay
his
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. 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.