Republic of the Philippines

MUNICIPALITY OF SIBULAN
Province of Negros Oriental

December 17, 2007

THE BARANGAY CAPTAIN/AND OR

THE CHAIRMAN OF THE PANGKAT
Lupon Tagapamayapa, Barangay Poblacion,
Sibulan, Negros Oriental

Dear Ma’am / Sirs:

I just want to inform this honorable office that the summons issued by Punong

Barangay JOB VILLALUZ, Poblacion, Sibulan, Negros Oriental on December 14, 2007 is

somehow irregular for it did not state the Barangay case No. and the Charge or Offense did I

commit subject to the said Conference. Under the Constitution it is my fundamental right to

be informed of the accusations lodged against me so that I can prepare my side and defend

my self. But there was none.

Under Rule III, Section 1. No. (7) b (1) of the Katarungang Pambarangay Rules,

one of the duties of the Punong Barangay is to receive all written complaints and put in

writing all verbal complaints made by individuals personally before him against other

individuals. This is to satisfy or comply with the Constitutional rights of the accused to be

informed of the accusations against him as mandated under our Constitution. Further, the

other reason for this provision is to determine whether the Lupong Tagapamayapa of

Poblacion, Sibulan has jurisdiction or not over the subject matter. And how could I determine

then under the circumstances whether this Lupon has jurisdiction over the subject matter

when there is no mention of the allegation of the offense charged against me. Another

question I want to ask is, “Why did the Punong Barangay inhibit himself from mediating our

conflict without proper explanation and justification under our existing law”? This is no

longer a joke. It is not as easy as releasing oneself from the responsibility of performing

one’s duties, this is MISFEASANCE. The parties should be informed why he inhibited

oneself. ‘”IGNORANCE OF THE LAW EXCUSES NO ONE”. Another violation of

Republic Act No. 7160 was committed by the Punong Barangay is the provision of paragraph
(a), Section 410 of RA 7160 which provides for the procedure for amicable settlement that

“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". In this case was there a

payment of the appropriate filing fee? I believe there was none, otherwise this again

tantamount to “Ignorance of the law”.

GRANTING without admitting that the procedure was proper, after the First Barangay

Councilor Dirky Fontelo conducted the mediation, confusion resulted because individuals

who were not the complainant were the ones who acted as complainant and after no

settlement was reached, we were informed that the Lupon will now conduct the conference.

But the Notice of hearing I received was still signed by the Punong Barangay and not by the

Pangkat Chairman. This is unprocedural and not in accordance with Section 410 paragraph

and (b) of Republic Act No. 7160, Otherwise known as the Local Government Code which

provides

“Section 410. (b) Mediation by Lupon Chairman—Upon receipt of the complaint,

the lupon chairman (refers to the Punong Barangay) 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”.

This did not happen in this case. Immediately after the termination of our conference last

December 14, 2007, we were informed that the next hearing will be conducted by the lupon.

This is again unprocedural because the next thing the punong Barangay or lupon chairman

will do is to constitute the Pangkat Tagapagsundo as mentioned by law. And the procedure of

constituting the pangkat is Section 1 to 5 of Rule V of the Katarungang Pambarangay Rules.

In fine, Section 1 of Rule V states that:

 Constitution of the Pangkat- The parties to a dispute that has not been successfully

settled by the Punong Barangay shall in his presence choose from among the Lupon

membership three (3) persons who shall constitute the pangkat that shall conciliate

their differences. Should the parties fail to agree on the Pangkat membership, the

same shall be determined by lots drawn by the Lupon chairman. The three (3)

regular members of the Pangkat, chosen by agreement or determined by Lot, shall

elect from among themselves their chairman and secretary.

And this time, it is the lupon chairman that issues the summons, pursuant to paragraph (d),

section 410 of R.A. 7160. More importantly, are the members of this lupon renewed their

appointment because if none, they could be charged for USURPATION OF PUBLIC

FUNCTIONS for discharging the duties of the lupon without any authority. Remember, the

term of office of the members of the Lupon Tagapamayapa is good for three (3) years only.

The law on the matter is Section 400 of Republic Act 7160 which provides:

Section 400. Oath and Term of Office—Upon appointment, each lupon member

shall take an oath of office before the punong Barangay. He shall hold office until

a new lupon is constituted on the third year following his appointment unless

sooner terminated by resignation, transfer of residence or place or work, or

withdrawal of appointment by the punong Barangay with the concurrence of the

majority of all the members of the lupon.

Finally, pursuant to Section 4, Rule IV of the Katarungang Pambarangay Rules.

Term of Office-Upon appointment, each member shall take his oath of office before the

Punong Barangay, Lupon members shall hold office until a new Lupon is constituted on the

third year following their appointment, x x xx.x. The term of office of the members of the

said lupon shall be coterminous with the term of office of the Punong Barangay who

appointed them. Again, Ignorance of the law excuses no one”

 We are laying these issues with legal basis, especially that the second Notice of

Hearing was sent again by the Punong Barangay, instead of the Pangkat Chairman as

mandated under the aforementioned laws.

Very Respectfully,

ESTER TUGADE VILLANUEVA

(Respondent)

cc: Hon. Ricardo Puno

DILG Secretary
Metro Manila