Remedial Law Part I-Katarungang Gay
Remedial Law Part I-Katarungang Gay
KATARUNGANG PAMBARANGGAY
(Part I of IX)
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)
2
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)
.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 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
.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)
falling under the exclusive competent of the MeTCs and MTCs, but for actions
cognizable by the RTCs as well.
Candido v. Macapagal, 221 SCRA 328 (1993) 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.
Ramos v. CA, 174 SCRA 690 (1989) 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.
Vda. de Borromeo v. Pogoy, 126 SCRA 217 (1983): Referral of a dispute to
the Barangay Lupon is required only where the parties thereto are
individuals. An intestate estate is a juridical person and not an individual.
The administrator may file the complaint directly in court.
San Miguel v. Pundogar, 173 SCRA 704 (1989): 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.
Uy v. Contreras, 237 SCRA 167 (1994): 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 tolls the prescriptive period for 60 days at most.
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) 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): 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.