Morata v.

Go
G.R. No. L-62339, [October 27, 1983], 210 PHIL 367-378)
ESCOLIN, J – EN BANC

Topic: LGUs – Barangay – Katarungang Pambarangay

Petitioner: Spouses Maria Luisa P. Morata And Julius Morata

Summary: The bone of contention in this case is whether the complaint filed, before the RTC
concerning parties who reside in the same barangay, must undergo prior barangay conciliation
proceedings. Defendants posit that such prior conciliation is mandatory and, thus, the action against
them before the RTC should be dismissed.
The Supreme Court ruled that prior conciliation proceedings were mandatory and, thus, the action filed
before the RTC should be dismissed since such pre-condition of barangay conciliation was not met.
Doctrine: The conciliation process at the barangay level, prescribed by P.D. 1508 as a pre-condition for
filing a complaint in court, is COMPULSORY not only for cases falling under the exclusive competent
of the metropolitan and municipal trial courts, but for actions cognizable by the regional trial courts as
well.
1. Victor Go and Flora D. Go filed in the CFI of Cebu a complaint against petitioners Julius
Morata and Ma. Luisa Morata for recovery of a sum of money plus damages.
2. Petitioners filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that:
a. The failure of the complaint to allege prior availment by the plaintiffs of the barangay
conciliation process required by P.D. 1508, 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.
b. The motion was opposed by private respondents.
3. MTD denied. Hence, this appeal.
4. From this order, petitioners came to Us thru this petition.
W/N the action filed before the trial court should be DISMISSED for not undergoing prior
barangay conciliation proceedings?
YES since prior barangay conciliation proceedings were required of parties residing in the same
city or municipality before filing in the trial court.
1. Sec. 6. Conciliation, pre-condition to filing of complaint. of P.D. 1508 reads as follows:
a. No complaint, petition, action for proceeding involving any matter within the authority of the
Lupon as provided in Section 2 hereof shall be filed or instituted in court or any other
government office for adjudication unless there has been a confrontation of the parties
before the Lupon Chairman or the Pangkat and no conciliation or settlement has been
reached as certified by the Lupon Secretary or the Pangkat Secretary attested by the Lupon or
Pangkat Chairman, or unless the settlement has been repudiated.
b. However, the parties may go directly to court in the following cases:
i. Where the accused is under detention;
ii. Where a person has otherwise been deprived of personal liberty calling for habeas
corpus proceedings;
iii. Actions coupled with provisional remedies such as preliminary injunction, attachment,
delivery of personal property and support pendente lite; and
iv. Where the action may otherwise be barred by the Statute of Limitations."
2. Section 2 of the law defines the scope of authority of the Lupon thus:
a. "SECTION 2. Subject matters for amicable settlement. — 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:
i. Where one party is the government, or any subdivision or instrumentality thereof;
ii. Where one party is a public officer or employee, and the dispute relates to the
performance of his official functions;
iii. Offenses punishable by imprisonment exceeding 30 days, or a fine exceeding P200.00;
iv. Offenses where there is no private offended party:
v. Such other classes of disputes which the Prime Minister may in the interest of justice
determine upon recommendation of the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Local
Government."
3. Thus, except in the instances enumerated in sections 2 and 6 of the law, the Lupon has the
authority to settle amicably all types of disputes involving parties who actually reside in the
same city or municipality.
a. The law, as written, makes no distinction whatsoever 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 by paragraph (3), section 2 thereof as regards its
authority over criminal cases.
b. In fact, in defining the Lupon's authority, Section 2 of said law employed the universal
and comprehensive term "all"
c. "Where the law does not distinguish, We should not distinguish." 2
4. RATIONALE:
a. By compelling the disputants to settle their differences through the intervention of the
barangay leader and other respected members of the barangay, the animosity generated
by protracted court litigations between members of the same political unit, a disruptive
factor toward unity and cooperation, is avoided.
b. It must be borne in mind that the conciliation process at the barangay level is likewise
designed to discourage indiscriminate filing of cases in court in order to decongest its
clogged dockets and, in the process, enhance the quality of justice dispensed by it.
c. Thus, to say that the authority of the Lupon is limited to cases exclusively cognizable
by the inferior courts is to lose sight of this objective.
d. Worse, it would make the law a self-defeating one.
5. OBJECTIVES -
a. Whereas clauses
i. "WHEREAS, the perpetuation and official recognition of the time- honored tradition of
amicably settling disputes among family and barangay level without judicial resources
would promote the speedy administration of justice and implement the constitutional
mandate to preserve and develop Filipino culture and to strengthen the family as a
basic social institution;
ii. "WHEREAS, the indiscriminate filing of cases in the courts of justice contributes
heavily and unjustifiably to the congestion of court dockets, thus causing a
deterioration in the quality of justice;
iii. "WHEREAS, in order to help relieve the courts of such docket congestion and thereby
enhance the quality of justice dispensed by the courts, it is deemed desirable to
formally organize and institutionalize a system of amicably settling disputes at the
barangay level."
b. When the law conferred upon the Lupon "the authority to bring together the parties
actually residing in the same city or municipality for amicable settlement of all
disputes, . . .," its obvious intendment was to grant to the Lupon as broad and
comprehensive an authority as possible as would bring about the optimum realization
of the aforesaid objectives.
 c. These objectives would only be half-met and easily thwarted if the Lupon's authority is
exercised only in cases falling within the exclusive jurisdiction of inferior courts.
6. Moreover, if it is the intention of the law to restrict its coverage only to cases cognizable by the
inferior courts, then it would not have provided in Section 3 thereof the following rule on
venue, to wit:
a. "Section 3. Venue . . . However, ALL disputes which involve real property or an interest therein
shall be brought in the Barangay where the real property or any part thereof is situated."
7. Jurisdiction over cases involving real property or any interest therein, except forcible entry and
detainer cases, has always been vested in the courts of first instance now RTC.
8. Further, Circular No. 22 issued by Chief Justice Enrique M. Fernando prompted the refusal to
accept complaints that have not yet undergone prior barangay conciliation.1
9. The conciliation process at the barangay level, prescribed by P.D. 1508 as a pre-condition for
filing a complaint in court, is COMPULSORY not only for cases falling under the exclusive
competent of the metropolitan and municipal trial courts, but for actions cognizable by the
regional trial courts as well.
Petition GRANTED.

1
The full text of which is quoted as follows:
"TO: ALL JUDGES OF THE COURTS OF FIRST INSTANCE, CIRCUIT CRIMINAL COURTS, JUVENILE AND DOMESTIC
RELATIONS COURTS, COURTS OF AGRARIAN RELATIONS, CITY COURTS, MUNICIPAL COURTS AND THEIR
CLERKS OF COURT.

"SUBJECT: Implementation of the Katarungang Pambarangay Law.

"Effective upon your receipt of the certification by the Minister of Local Government and Community Development that all the
barangays within your respective jurisdictions have organized their Lupons provided for in Presidential Decree No. 1508, otherwise
known as the Katarungang Pambarangay Law, in implementation of the barangay system of settlement of disputes, you are hereby
directed to desist from receiving complaints, petitions, actions or proceedings in cases falling within the authority of said Lupons.

"Circular No. 12 dated October 20, 1978, issued by the late Chief Justice Fred Ruiz Castro is to that extent modified.

"This Circular takes effect immediately."