REMEDIAL LAW REVIEWER KATARUNGANG PAMBARANGGAY (Part I of IX) I. Katarungang Pambarangay A. Local Government Code (Secs. 399-422) xxx.

Sec. 399. Lupong Tagapamayapa. - (a) There is hereby created in each barangay a lupong tagapamayapa, 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) Sec. 409. Venue. - (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 different barangays within the same city or municipality shall be brought in the barangay where the respondent or any of the respondents actually resides, at the election of the complainant. (c) All disputes involving real property or any interest therein shall be brought in the barangay where the real property or the larger portion thereof is situated. (d) Those arising at the workplace where the contending parties are employed or at the institution where such parties are enrolled for study, shall be brought in the barangay where such workplace or institution is located. Objections to venue shall be raised in the mediation proceedings before the punong barangay; otherwise, the same 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 within the same city or municipality barangay where the/a respondent resides, at the option of the complainant

muklo

Remedial Law Reviewer

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 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

muklo

Remedial Law Reviewer

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) (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 for annulment of arbitration award with the MTC (Sec. 416) 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.

muklo

Remedial Law Reviewer

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 (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 B. Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 14-93 back I. All disputes are subject to Barangay conciliation pursuant to the Revised Katarungang Pambarangay Law xxx, and prior recourse thereto is a pre-condition before filing a complaint in court or any government offices, except in the following disputes: 1. Where one party is the government, or any subdivision or instrumentality thereof; 2. Where one party is a public officer or employee, and the dispute relates to the performance of his official functions; 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 or juridical entities, since only individuals shall be parties to Barangay conciliation proceedings either as complainants or respondents (Sec. 1, Rule VI, Katarungang Pambarangay Rules); 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;

muklo

Remedial Law Reviewer

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 employer-employee 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). Exceptions to Barangay Conciliation ***When prior recourse to Barangay conciliation is not a pre-condition before filing a complaint in court or any government offices*** (MEMORIZE!) 1. one party is the government, or any subdivision or instrumentality thereof; 2. one party is a public officer or employee, and the dispute relates to the performance of his official functions; 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. Actions coupled with provisional remedies 11. 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

muklo

Remedial Law Reviewer

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 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 and attested by the Pangkat Chairman, certifying that: 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:

muklo

Remedial Law Reviewer

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 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 C. Cases Morata v. Go, 125 SCRA 444 (1983) Petition for certiorari and prohibition with prayer for writ of prelim injunction to review the order of Judge Tomol CFI Cebu BR11. FACTS: Respondent spouses Victor & Flora Go filed in the CFI of Cebu a complaint against petitioners Julius & Ma. Luisa Morata for recovery of a sum of money plus damages amounting to Php49,400. Petitioners filed a motion to dismiss on grounds that of failure of the complaint to allege prior availment by plaintiffs of the barangay conciliation process required by PD1508, as well as the absence of a certification by the Lupon or Pangkat Secretary that no conciliation or settlement had been reached by the parties. The motion was opposed by private respondents. Respondent judge denied the said motion to dismiss. Petitioners filed a motion for recon but the same was denied. HELD: 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 with respect to the classes of civil disputes that should be compromised at the barangay level, in contradistinction to the limitation imposed upon the Lupon over criminal cases. The fact that the city or municipal courts are forum for the nullification or execution of the settlement or arbitration award issued by the Lupon cannot be construed as a limitation of the scope of authority of the Lupon. This merely confers upon the city and municipal courts the jurisdiction to pass upon and resolve petitions or actions for nullification or enforcement of settlement/arbitration awards issued by the Lupon, regardless of the amount involved or the nature of the original dispute. But there is nothing in the context of said sections to justify the thesis that the mandated conciliation process in other types of cases applies exclusively to said inferior courts. The conciliation process at the barangay level is compulsory not only for cases 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) Petition for certiorari of the orders of Judge Macapagal RTC18 Malolos. 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 Extrajudicial 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.

muklo

Remedial Law Reviewer

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. Ramos v. CA, 174 SCRA 690 (1989) FACTS: Domingo Ramos authorized his brother Manuel to sell his share of lands owned by them in common with their other brothers and sisters. Manuel did. Later, Domingo revoked the power of attorney and demanded an accounting from Manuel. Manuel refused. Domingo then filed a complaint with the Punong Barangay of Pampanga, Buhangin District, Davao City. Manuel appeared but Domingo did not on the schedule hearing by the Punong Bgy. Domingo was represented, however, by his wife who said her husband wanted to avoid a direct confrontation with his brother. She requested that the Punong Bgy issue a certification that no settlement had been reached so a complaint could be filed in court. The Punong Bgy complied. Thereupon, Domingo sued Manuel in the RTC Davao, also for accounting, in Civil Case No. 18560-87. Manuel moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground of non-compliance with the requirements of PD1508. He cited the failure of the Punong Bgy to refer the dispute to the Pangkat ng Tagapagkasundo after the unsuccessful mediation proceedings convened by him. The motion was denied. Manuel then filed with this Court a petition for certiorari which we referred to the CA. CA denied the petition. It held that there was no need for such referral because Domingo had clearly indicated, by his refusal to appear before the Punong Bgy, that no extrajudicial settlement was possible between him and his brother. Manuel is now before us to question this decision. HELD: 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): Petitioner seeks to stop respondent Judge Pogoy of MTC Cebu from taking cognizance of an ejectment suit for failure of the plaintiff to refer the dispute to the Bgy Lupon for conciliation. FACTS: The intestate estate of the late Vito Borromeo is the owner of a building located at F. Ramos, Cebu City. Said building has been leased and occupied by petitioner Petra Vda. de Borromeo at a monthly rental of Php500. Private respondent Atty Reyes, administrator of the estate, served upon petitioner a letter demanding that she pay the overdue rentals and thereafter vacate the premises. Petitioner failed to do so. Atty Reyes instituted an ejectment case against the Petra in the MTC. Petitioner moved to dismiss the case, advancing et al, the want of jurisdiction of the MTC. Petitioner contends that the court could not exercise jurisdiction over the case for failure of Atty Reyes to refer the dispute to the Bgy Court as required by PD1508. Respondent judge denied the MtD. After MfR was denied, petitioner filed petitioner for Certiorari with SC. Atty Reyes admitted not having availed himself of the bgy conciliation process, but justified such omission by citing par4, sec6 PD1508 which allows the direct filing of an action in court where the same may otherwise be barred by the Statute of Limitations as applying to the case at bar. HELD: 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): FACTS: Petitioner San Miguel Village School (SMVS) entered into a contract of services with private respondent Christina Trio, where Trio would teach at SMVS during SY1985-86 which would start june85 and end March86. Sometime Aug85, Trio suddenly stopped teaching at SMVS without giving notice of termination and thereby causing difficulties for SMVS. SMVS filed a complaint for breach of contract with damages against respondent Christina Trio before RTC03 Lanao del Norte. A Certificate to File Action, signed by the Bgy Capt of Bgy Palao, Iligan City, bearing the notation that the respondent cannot be contacted was filed along with the complaint. Summons was served upon private respondent thru her husband. Private respondent failed to file an answer within the reglementary period, petitioner SMVS move to

muklo

Remedial Law Reviewer

declare her in default. RTC granted the motion, declared private respondent in default and designated the Clerk of Court to receive the evidence of the petitioner and thereafter report back to court. Trio filed a Petition for Relief from Judgment with the RTC, alleging that the court had no juricdiction to render its decision for failure of petitioner to go through the mandatory conciliation procedure prescribed by sec2&6 of PD1508. Trio argued that the certification of the Bgy Capt of Palao was inadequate compliance with PD1508, Trio being a resident of Bgy Tomas Cabili, and not Bgy Palao. RTC, this time presided by Judge Pundogar, issued an order upholding Trios contentions and setting aside the assailed decision. Judge Pundogar acknowledged the impropriety of the Petition for Relief from Judgment, he nonetheless in effect granted the relief sought, holding that the RTC in rendering the decision, acted without jurisdiction over parties and the subject matter of the action for failure of petitioner to comply with PD1508. A MfR by petitioner was denied by 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. Uy v. Contreras, 237 SCRA 167 (1994): Petition for Certiorari under Rule65 for the order of Judge Contreras denying the petitioners MtD crim cases for slight physical injuries. MtD is based on the failure of the private respondents, as offended parties therein, to comply with PD1508 and sec18 of 1991 Revised Rule on Summary Procedure requiring referral of disputes to the Lupong Tagapamayapa of the proper bgy. FACTS: Petitioner Felicidad Uy subleased from respondent Susanna Atayde the other half of the 2nd floor of a building in Makati. Uy operated and maintained a beauty parlor. Sublease contract expired but Uy was not able to remove all her movable properties. 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 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. Noncompliance with that condition precedent could effect the sufficiency of the plaintiff's cause of action and make his

muklo

Remedial Law Reviewer

10

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 the lupon signifies that you want to conciliate or mediate. Since filing a case in court would signify that you want to litigate and not mediate. Therefore the conciliation should be finished 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. Gegare v. CA, 177 SCRA 471 (1989) this case involves a small piece of land. The decision was to cut it into 2 between the parties. Petitioner wants the whole lot while the private respondent if happy with his half. FACTS: a 270sq.mtr lot situated in GenSan was titled in the name of Paulino Elma. A reversion case was filed by the Republic against Paulino and the lot was reverted to the mass of public domain subject to disposition and giving preferential right to its actual occupant, Napoleon Gegare. Both petitioner and private respondent filed an application for the lot in the Board of Liquidators (Board). Board resoleved to dispose the lot in favor of petitioner by way of a negotiated sale. Private respondent protested against the application of petitioned, then Board denied the said protest. A request for recon of private respondent was referred by the Board to Artemio Garlit, liquidator-designee, GenSan Branch for verification and investigation. After which, Garlit submitted a report to the Manila Ofc recommending division of the lot to the parties. Nevertheless, the Board denied the protest because the case had already been decided by the court. However, a MfR filed by private respondent was favorably considered by the Board. Board directed the chief of LASEDECO to investigate the occupancy and area of the lot. Findings were that only private respondent was the actual occupant so the LASEDECO chief recommended the division of the property. Both parties appealed to the Ofc of the President but both appeals were dismiss. A MfR filed by petitioner was denied on 29may84 Private respondent paid for the value of of the lot and applied for the issuance of a patent. Patent was issued to portion of the lot. Petitioner was also adviced to file his application and pay his portion. 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 conci liation 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. Galuba v. Laureta, 157 SCRA 627 (1988): HELD: 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.