Analysis of Key Provisions of the Barangay Conciliation Law

BARANGAY CONCILIATION (R.A. NO. 7160) 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

d. where the action may be barred by the statute of 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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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 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?

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?

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

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

What if the defendant does not invoke the lack of prior conciliation before the brgy?

If a person files a suit respecting his civil status, is there a need for prior barangay conciliation?

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

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.

May a case or proceeding be filed directly in court without passing the lupon?

If the parties belong to the cultural minorites, what rules shall the pangkat apply?

Yes, because the requirement is not absolute. XPNs are: 1. where the accused is under detention

The customs and traditions of indigenous cultural communities shall be applied in settling disputes between members of the cultural communities

2. where a person has otherwise been deprived of personal liberty calling for habeas corpus proceeding

What is the requirement of the law with respect to the appearance of the parties before the lupon or pangkat?

3. where actions are coupled with provisional remedies such as preliminary injunction, attachment, delivery of personal property, and support pendente lite

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

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.

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 noncompliance with the Katarungang Pambarangay Law?

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

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

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

Is it necessary that the settlement be transmitted to the proper MTC?

The motion could therefore be treated as an original action, and not merely as a motion/special proceeding.

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

Does the MCTC have the authority to enforce the kasunduan before the brgy regardless of the amount involved?

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.

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