DMINISTRATIVE CIRCULAR NO. 14-93.

ADMINISTRATIVE CIRCULAR NO. 14-93

TO: ALL REGIONAL TRIAL COURTS, METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURTS, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURTS AND
MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURTS
SUBJECT: GUIDELINES ON THE KATARUNGANG PAMBARANGAY CONCILIATION PROCEDURE TO
PREVENT CIRCUMVENTION OF THE REVISED KATARUNGANG PAMBARANGAY LAW [SECTIONS 399-422,
CHAPTER VII, TITLE I, BOOK III, R. A. 7160, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE OF
1991].

The Revised Katarungang Pambarangay Law under R. A. 7160, otherwise known as the Local
Government Code of 1991, effective on January 1, 1992 and which repealed P. D. 1508, introduced
substantial changes not only in the authority granted to the Lupong Tagapamayapa but also in the
procedure to be observed in the settlement of disputes within the authority of the Lupon.cralaw

In order that the laudable purpose of the law may not be subverted and its effectiveness undermined by
indiscriminate, improper and/or premature issuance of certifications to file actions in court by the Lupon
or Pangkat Secretaries, attested by the Lupon/Pangkat Chairmen, respectively, the following guidelines
are hereby issued for the information of trial court judges in cases brought before them coming from
the Barangays:chanrobles virtual law library

I. All disputes are subject to Barangay conciliation pursuant to the Revised Katarungang Pambarangay
Law [formerly P. D. 1508, repealed and now replaced by Secs. 399-422, Chapter VII, Title I, Book III, and
Sec. 515, Title I, Book IV, R.A. 7160, otherwise known as the Local Government Code of 1991], and prior
recourse thereto is a pre-condition before filing a complaint in court or any government offices, except
in the following disputes:chanrobles virtual law library

[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, partnerships 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;

[6] Offenses for which the law prescribes a maximum penalty of imprisonment exceeding one [1] year or
a fine of 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:chanrobles virtual law library

[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 of 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 cralaw

[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) [Secs. 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].cralaw

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:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
[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:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
[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 unsuccessful, 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.cralaw

III. All complaints and/or informations filed or raffled to your sala/branch of the Regional Trial Court
shall be carefully read and scrutinized to determine if there has been compliance with prior Barangay
conciliation procedure under the Revised Katarungang Pambarangay Law and its Implementing Rules
and Regulations as a pre-condition to judicial action, particularly whether the certification to file action
attached to the records of the case comply with the requirements hereinabove enumerated in Par. II;
IV. A case filed in court without compliance with prior Barangay conciliation which is a pre-condition for
formal adjudication (Sec. 412 [a] of the Revised Katarungang Pambarangay Law) 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 (Royales vs. IAC, 127 SCRA 470; Gonzales vs. CA, 151 SCRA 289), 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:chanrobles virtual law library

"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.

Barangay Conciliation
Procedures in barangay conciliation

1. The offended party files his complaint orally or in written form to the Lupon chairman.
2. The Barangay Captain (or Lupon chairman) then summons the respondent within the next working
day.
3. If the respondent fails to appear, he is barred from filing a counterclaim. If it is the complainant who
fails to appear, he is barred from seeking recourse in court.
4. Mediation, conciliation or arbitration of the conflicting interests of the parties takes place through the
Lupon. If the Lupon chairman fails in the mediation efforts within fifteen (15) days from the first meeting
of the parties before him, he sets the date of the constitution of the Pangkat ng Tagapagkasundo.
5. Within three (3) days from its constitution, the Pangkat will summon the parties for a confrontation
(no lawyers or representatives are allowed, except for cases involving minors or incompetents who may
be assisted by their next of kin).
6. The Pangkat shall arrive at a settlement or resolution within fifteen days from the day it convenes (the
period is extendible to another fifteen days in meritorious cases).
7. Either party may repudiate the settlement by filing a sworn statement within ten (10) days from the
date of the written amicable settlement.
8. The amicable settlement or arbitration award may be executed by the Lupon within six (6) months
from the date of the settlement. After this period, it may be enforced by a court action.
9. If within fifteen to thirty days the parties fail to amicably settle the matter, the Lupon issues a
certification for filing of the action in court.
10. The complainant files the case in court for civil cases, or with the office of the public prosecutor
(“fiscal”) for criminal cases.
Note: The prescriptive period for the filing of cases in court is interrupted by conciliation proceedings,
up to 60 days from filing of the complaint with the Punong Barangay. Actions based on written contracts
prescribe in ten years. Criminal cases involving BP 22 (bouncing checks) must be filed within four years
from the time the check bounced; after that period, only a civil case for collection can be filed. The
prescriptive period is tolled or interrupted by the filing of the complaint with the fiscal or public
prosecutor's office.

Cases not covered by barangay conciliation (Local Government Code, Section 408)

1. Where one party is the government or any of its subdivision or instrumentality

2. Where one party is a public officer or employee, and the dispute relates to the performance of his
official functions
3. Offenses punishable by imprisonment exceeding one year or by a fine exceeding five thousand pesos
(Php 5,000.)
4. Offenses where there is no private offended party
Disputes not covered by barangay conciliation

1. Those involving parties who actually reside in barangays of different cities or municipalities, except
where such barangays adjoin each other
2. Those involving real property located in different cities or municipalities
Note: In both cases, the parties may agree to submit their differences for amicable settlement by the
appropriate Lupon.

Instances when the parties may go directly to court

1. Where the accused is under police custody or detention

2. Where a person has otherwise been deprived of personal liberty calling for habeas corpus
proceedings
3. Actions coupled with provisional remedies such as preliminary injunction, temporary restraining
orders, attachment, replevin, etc
4. Where the action may be barred by the Statute of Limitations (the law that bars the filing of an action
after a prescribed period)
5. Labor disputes arising from an employer-employee relationship, or disputes arising from the
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law