Dear PAO,

I have a dispute with my neighbor, and I must admit that I did not avail of barangay conciliation when I filed the complaint against him in court. The barangay officials and my neighbor were related, so I refused to undergo conciliation proceedings before the barangay out of concern that I will not be treated fairly. I am worried because my neighbor bragged that my complaint will be automatically dismissed by the court because of my failure to undergo barangay conciliation proceedings. Is he correct?

Teddy

Dear Teddy,

As a rule, it is a requirement for contending parties residing in the same barangay to undergo conciliation before filing a case in court. This is in consonance with Section 412 of Republic Act (RA) 7160 or the Local Government Code of 1991, which provides that:

“Section 412. Conciliation. –

“(a) Pre-condition to Filing of Complaint in Court. – No complaint, petition, action, or proceeding involving any matter within the authority of the lupon shall be filed or instituted directly in court or any other government office for adjudication, unless there has been a confrontation between the parties before the lupon chairman or the pangkat, and that no conciliation or settlement has been reached as certified by the lupon secretary or pangkat secretary as attested to by the lupon or pangkat chairman or unless the settlement has been repudiated by the parties thereto.

“(b) Where Parties May Go Directly to Court. – The parties may go directly to court in the following instances:

‘(1) Where the accused is under detention;

‘(2) Where a person has otherwise been deprived of personal liberty calling for habeas corpus proceedings;

‘(3) Where actions are coupled with provisional remedies such as preliminary injunction, attachment, delivery of personal property and support pendente lite; and

‘(4) Where the action may otherwise be barred by the statute of limitations.’

“(c) Conciliation Among Members of Indigenous Cultural Communities. – The customs and traditions of indigenous cultural communities shall be applied in settling disputes between members of the cultural communities.”

Correlative thereto, Section 12 (a)(5), Rule 8 of AM 19-10-20-SC (2019 Proposed Amendments to the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure) states that:

“Section 12. Affirmative defenses. — (a) A defendant shall raise his affirmative defenses in his answer, which shall be limited to the reasons set forth under Section 5(b), Rule 6, and the following grounds:xxx

“5. That a condition precedent for filing the claim has not been complied with.” (Emphasis ours)

Further, Section 12 (b) of the same Rules specifically provides that: “Failure to raise the affirmative defenses at the earliest opportunity shall constitute a waiver thereof.”

Thus, the respondent may raise as an affirmative defense in his answer the ground that there was no compliance with the condition precedent before filing the claim, such as non-resort to barangay conciliation proceedings. Such failure, however, will not result in the automatic dismissal of the case. Please be guided by the decision in the case of Ngo vs. Gabelo, et al., GR 207707, Aug. 24, 2020, where the Supreme Court, speaking through Associate Justice Ramon Paul Hernando, held that:

“Based on the aforecited provisions, all disputes between parties actually residing in the same city or municipality are subject to barangay conciliation. A prior recourse thereto is a pre-condition before filing a complaint in court or any government office. Non-compliance with the said condition precedent could affect the sufficiency of the plaintiff’s cause of action and make his complaint vulnerable to dismissal on ground of lack of cause of action or prematurity; but the same would not prevent a court of competent jurisdiction from exercising its power of adjudication over the case before it, where the defendants failed to object to such exercise of jurisdiction.”

Applying the afore-cited decision in your situation, assuming your dispute falls within the jurisdiction of the barangay, it is mandatory for you to bring the dispute before the lupon chairman or the pangkat since you and your neighbor are residents of the same barangay. Non-compliance therewith would affect the sufficiency of your cause of action. Nonetheless, your neighbor’s statement that your complaint will be automatically dismissed for failure to comply with the barangay conciliation has no legal basis because the court may not be prevented from hearing the case if your neighbor fails to object to its exercise of jurisdiction at the proper time.

We hope that we were able to answer your queries. This advice is based solely on the facts you have narrated and our appreciation of the same. Our opinion may vary when other facts are changed or elaborated on.

Editor’s note: Dear PAO is a daily column of the Public Attorney’s Office. Questions for Chief Acosta may be sent to [email protected]