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

Philippine's barangay justice system

For purposes of legal research of the visitors of this blog, digested below are the
main recommendations contained in the STUDY ON THE EFFICACY AND
EFFICIENCY OF THE BARANGAY JUSTICE SYSTEM (KATARUNGANG
PAMBARANGAY): FINAL REPORT funded by the GERRY ROXAS
FOUNDATION, released in March 2000, for the benefit of the Action Program for
Judicial Reform of the Philippine Supreme Court, thus:
X x x.
7.0 Recommendations to Improve the BJS Implementaion
7.1 Training

Based on an assesment of training needs several training programs were

recommended by the Lupon Chairman, Lupon Members, and Lupon Secretary
respondents:
(a) Procedures of settlement of barangay cases
(b) Mediation/Conciliation/Arbitration procedures
(c) KP Laws
(d) Administrative requirements of the KP Law
(e) Current updates of human right violation
(f) Classification of cases
(g) Procedure in organizing LT/Duties and Function of Lupon
Chairman/Member/Secretary.
Other training areas outside of KP system were also identified by the
implementors.
A number of respondents put high priority on Barangay Administration &
Governance.
Additional training identified by the implementors based on their needs are:
(a) Operations and Management (b) Rental Law
(c) Public Administration
(d) Human Relations
(e) Childrens Rights
(f) Gender/Womens Rights
(g) New Family Code
X x x.

7.2 Monitoring
Strengthening of the KP Monitoring System was also identified as a priority area
by implementors. Among the recommendations described to improve the
monitoring system include: Funding support for KP Operations, designing a
simplified form for reporting and strengthening of the KP Monitoring Unit.
7.3 Other Recommendations to Improve Overall Implementation of BJS
A major recommendation is to enhance advocacy activities on the KP and
intensify information dissemination specially in the barangays. Another significant
activity suggested by 22% of Barangay Chairman respondent is to require new
law graduates to render assistance to the Barangay. Twenty (20) percent of
Lupon Member respondents also recommend the provision of allowance to LT
Members.
X x x.
PART III
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Metro Manila is a melting pot of the different cultures and traditions of the various
migrants that have poured into the area. Little wonder that the NCR research
findings generally echo the findings elsewhere in the Philippines. Thus, in the
areas where the BJS is functioning, the citizens look to it as their court, their
avenue for their quest for justice in case of conflicts. This attests to the success,
though not on a scale as envisioned, of the BJS to assist the judiciary in
declogging court dockets.
a. Need for more information. Significant is the need for information, by both
the beneficiaries and the implementors, on the KP Law itself. The need
notwithstanding, it is evident that barangay residents see the BJS as the venue
for the settlement/resolution of conflicts, even before they even think of going to
the formal judicial system for redress. The awareness that an avenue is available
for conflict resolution stems not so much from knowledge of the law both
procedural and substantive, as from practical awareness of what is going in the
barangay.
The historical root of the KP law finds itself alive today in the sense that the
citizens feel part of a community, the barangay, that will help them settle conflicts

through its chief or barangay captain. The citizens are not only beneficiaries but
also participants in the process of seeking justice, through the Lupon.
Although the essence of settlement on the barangay level does away with the
merits of the conflict, inevitably though, by the very nature of a conflict, the
parties agree with a settlement only after they have been made aware and
appraised of their rights and obligations as well as the breaches that led to the
conflict. After all, justice, which to them is giving one what is due him, is anchored
on the respect for ones rights. This belief rationalizes the need for information of
the both substantive and procedural law to equip the barangay captains and
the Lupon members on the basics of the law. In effect the barangay captain
and/or the Lupon take on the complexion of a parajudge.
b. Lack of budgetary support
Mercenary as it sounds, considering that the heart of the BJS is the
encouragement of citizen volunteerism, money plays a significant role in the
determination of whether or not the BJS has succeeded or will succeed. Section
393 of the Local Government Code (1991) provides that Lupon members be
compensated in accordance with a municipal or barangay ordinance Thus, while
the barangay has the power and authority to provide financial support to the BJS,
it does not.
c. The citizens support the BJS because it is accessible, conflicts are
resolved/settled fast, and inexpensive.
Whatever support is given by the citizen is essentially moral. He avails himself of
the BJS; a tribute to the avowed purpose which the citizen trusts is fulfilled.
Basically, the citizen goes to the BJS for conflict resolution because it is
accessible, physical proximity is thus not to be underestimated. Compared to
case resolution in the courts, which take a short year or a long twenty years, BJS
conflict resolution takes a maximum of one month. Just as important is the
expense involved. Barangays charge a minimum of P20.00 (if at all) though they
are authorized to legislate a higher amount, i.e. P50.00. Nonetheless, compared
to what the courts charge, the amount is very small, thus affordable to those who
need more in law the disadvantaged.
d. Need to review the KP Law
d.1. The Lupon and the Pangkat

In an informal interview, it was found that one of the more successful barangays,
insofar as the implementation of the BJS was concerned, adopted procedures
that suited their perceived needs that did not conform with the provisions of law.
The Lupon, made up of 20 members, were divided into 6 groups of three each,
with 2 members as roving. When a complaint is filed, the barangay captain
raffles it any one of the six divisions of the Lupon, which then proceeds to
settle/resolve the case. The division, apparently the Pangkat is not constituted
with the participation of the disputants.
This barangay claims to have a high success rate. It is suggested that a case
study be conducted on this barangay to determine the effectivity of the method
used. The results would provide information and inputs to whether or not the KP
law should be amended and if so, with regards what provisions.
e. The court dockets are declogged.
The findings confirm the reports submitted to the DILG regarding the number of
cases that do not find their way to the courts.
The court dockets are declogged.
The findings confirm the reports submitted to the DILG regarding the number of
cases that do not find their way to the courts.
X x x.
Posted by Philippine Laws and Cases - Atty. Manuel J. Laserna Jr. at 1:12 PM