Dear PAO,

I just have a question about barangay conciliation. Whenever there is a fight or disagreement in our area, we always go to the barangay first. There was a time when my aunt wanted to file a case against our neighbor, and they said that it needed to go through the barangay first. Are there instances when a case does not need to go through the barangay conciliation? Or do all cases really have to go through it? Thank you for your response.

Maybelle

Dear Maybelle,

Republic Act (RA) 7160, or the Local Government Code of 1991, expanded the scope and authority of the Barangay Justice System, which was designed to reduce the number of cases filed in the courts and prevent the decline in the quality of justice caused by the indiscriminate filing of cases in the courts. To achieve this goal, RA 7160 mandates that parties must undergo barangay conciliation process before filing a complaint in court. The barangay are in the best position to mediate disputes within families or communities. On July 15, 1993, the Supreme Court (SC) issued Administrative Circular 14-93, which directed courts to ensure compliance with the requirement of going through the Barangay Justice System as a condition before filing a complaint in court for cases covered by this system.

Regarding your question, the Supreme Court’s Decision in the case of Ngo vs Gabelo, GR 207707, Aug. 24, 2020, penned by Honorable Associate Justice Ramon Paul L. Hernando, outlines the cases that are not subject to mandatory barangay conciliation. The list of situations or cases that do not require barangay mediation, as specified in Administrative Circular 14-93 issued by the Supreme Court, includes:

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, partnership 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 barangay 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 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:

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 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

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) (Sec. 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).

This means that not all cases need to go through the Barangay Justice System for conciliation. The situations mentioned above are cases where barangay conciliation is not required. If a dispute falls under any of these cases, the aggrieved party can go directly to the court or the appropriate government agency without undergoing barangay conciliation.

We hope that we were able to answer your queries. This advice was 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.

Thank you for your continued trust and support.

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]