Brief Summary
This video explains the rules and jurisprudence surrounding barangay conciliation in the Philippines, a mandatory step before filing a case in court for certain disputes. It covers the process, exceptions, venue, and consequences of non-compliance, citing relevant laws and Supreme Court decisions. The key takeaway is understanding when barangay conciliation is required, how it should be conducted, and what happens if it's not followed properly.
- Barangay conciliation is a precondition for filing a case in court for disputes within the authority of the Lupon.
- There are exceptions where parties can go directly to court, such as when the accused is under detention or when provisional remedies are involved.
- Non-compliance with barangay conciliation is not a jurisdictional defect but can lead to the dismissal of a case if not raised as an objection.
- Parties must appear in person during barangay conciliation proceedings without the assistance of a lawyer.
Barangay Conciliation: A Precondition to Filing a Case in Court
Barangay conciliation, as mandated by Section 412 of Republic Act 7160 (Local Government Code), requires parties to attempt settlement at the barangay level before taking their case to court. If settlement fails, the barangay issues a Certification to File Action, which the complainant uses as proof of compliance. Failure to comply with this precondition may result in the dismissal of the case.
Exceptions to Barangay Conciliation
There are exceptions to the rule on barangay conciliation, allowing parties to go directly to court. These include cases where the accused is under detention, actions involving deprivation of personal liberty (Habeas Corpus proceedings), actions coupled with provisional remedies (preliminary injunction, attachment, etc.), and actions that may be barred by the statute of limitations.
Conciliation for Indigenous Cultural Communities
For members of indigenous cultural communities, disputes are settled using their customs and traditions. This acknowledges the unique social structures and practices within these communities.
Subject Matter for Amicable Settlements
The Lupon of each barangay has the authority to bring together parties residing in the same city or municipality for amicable settlement of disputes. However, there are exceptions to this rule.
Exceptions to Amicable Settlement Requirement
Amicable settlement is not required when one party is the government or its subdivision, a public officer involved in disputes related to their official functions, or in cases involving offenses punishable by imprisonment exceeding one year or a fine exceeding 5,000 pesos. It also doesn't apply to offenses without a private offended party or disputes involving real properties in different cities or municipalities, unless the parties agree to submit to amicable settlement. Disputes between parties residing in different cities or municipalities are also exempted, unless the barangays adjoin each other and the parties agree to conciliation.
Venue of Barangay Conciliation
Disputes between residents of the same barangay are settled by the Lupon of that barangay. For residents of different barangays within the same city or municipality, the case is brought in the barangay where the respondent resides, at the complainant's choice. Disputes involving real property are brought in the barangay where the property is located. Workplace or school-related disputes are brought in the barangay where the workplace or institution is located. Objections to venue must be raised during mediation proceedings, or they are waived.
Zamora vs. Erispe
In Zamora vs. Erispe, the Supreme Court emphasized that the primary goal of barangay conciliation is to reduce court litigations and improve the quality of justice. The court ruled that if confrontations before the barangay chairman have already occurred, requiring another confrontation at the barangay level would be unnecessary, especially if the parties have repeatedly shown their inability to settle amicably. Substantial compliance with the law is sufficient, even if the Pankat (conciliation panel) was not formally constituted, as long as the parties met and discussed the issues.
Pascual vs. Pascual
Pascual vs. Pascual reiterates the principle that if parties do not reside in the same city or municipality or adjoining barangays, there is no requirement to submit their dispute to the Lupon. This ruling, initially established in Tavora vs. Veloso, remains applicable under the Local Government Code.
De Guzman vs. Tumolva
De Guzman vs. Tumolva clarifies that barangay conciliation is not required if not all real parties in interest reside in the same city or municipality. The actual residence of the real party in interest, not the attorney-in-fact, is relevant for determining compliance with barangay conciliation requirements.
Years of Orito vs. Montesclaros
Years of Orito vs. Montesclaros states that if a complaint doesn't fall under the accepted exceptions or doesn't allege prior availment of conciliation or include a certification of no conciliation, the case should be dismissed.
Aquino vs. Aure
Aquino vs. Aure clarifies that non-compliance with barangay conciliation is not a jurisdictional defect but makes the complaint premature. However, failure to object to the non-compliance in a timely manner (i.e., in the answer) constitutes a waiver of that defense. The court cannot dismiss the case motu proprio (on its own initiative) on the ground of failure to comply with barangay conciliation, as this ground is not among those specified in the Rules of Civil Procedure for such dismissal.
Heirs of Soledad Durano vs. Spouses Durano
Heirs of Soledad Durano vs. Spouses Durano reinforces that non-compliance with barangay conciliation must be invoked at the earliest opportunity. If the respondent is declared in default for failure to file a responsive pleading, the court cannot dismiss the complaint on the ground of non-compliance with barangay conciliation.
Bonifacio Law Office vs. Valencia
Bonifacio Law Office vs. Valencia emphasizes the importance of proper and timely issuance of the Certification to File Action. The Supreme Court held that the certification was improperly and prematurely issued because the pancat was not constituted and no face-to-face conciliation of the parties had taken place before it. The barangay must exert enough effort to conciliate between the parties before issuing the certification.
Umale vs. ASB Realty Corporation
Umale vs. ASB Realty Corporation reiterates that parties may go directly to court when the action is coupled with provisional remedies, such as a prayer for a preliminary injunction. Good faith is presumed in applying for a preliminary injunction, and the court cannot assume bad faith to justify dismissing the action.
Merino vs. Spouses Salcedo
Merino vs. Spouses Salcedo supports the idea that substantial compliance with barangay conciliation requirements is sufficient. If the parties have already exhibited their unwillingness to settle, requiring another referral to the barangay would be a circuitous and unnecessary delay.
Magno vs. Velasco-Jacoba
Magno vs. Velasco-Jacoba underscores the requirement of personal appearance of parties in barangay conciliation proceedings, unassisted by counsel or representative (except for minors and incompetents assisted by their next of kin who are not lawyers). The rationale is to enable the Lupon to secure firsthand information and facilitate settlement without the potentially complicating presence of lawyers. The prohibition applies to all katarungan pangbarangay proceedings.
