Dear PAO,

My neighbor is very hard to deal with. He always makes an issue out of small things. On one occasion, we had a verbal altercation which almost resulted in a fistfight. I intend to file the appropriate criminal or civil case against him before the court or the office of the prosecutor, but I was informed by one friend that I should first file a complaint before the barangay. I am hesitant to follow his advice because most of the barangay officials are relatives of my neighbor, and I think that I will not get a fair treatment in the said forum. Do I have the discretion not to bring the case before the barangay? What is the purpose of the barangay conciliation proceedings?

Armakey

Dear Armakey,

Residents of the same barangay are required to comply with Section 412 (a) of Republic Act (RA) 7610 (Local Government Code of 1991), which provides that:

“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 chairman or pangkat chairman or unless the settlement has been repudiated by the parties thereto.”

There are instances (Section 412 (b) Id.), however, where a party may go directly to the court. These are the following:

“(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.”

The rationale behind the barangay justice system was succinctly explained in Aquino v. Aure, GR 153567, Feb. 18, 2008, where the Supreme Court, speaking through Associate Justice Minita Chico-Nazario, stated that:

“The barangay justice system was established primarily as a means of easing up the congestion of cases in the judicial courts. This could be accomplished through a proceeding before the barangay courts which, according to the conceptor of the system, the late Chief Justice Fred Ruiz Castro, is essentially arbitration in character, and to make it truly effective, it should also be compulsory. With this primary objective of the barangay justice system in mind, it would be wholly in keeping with the underlying philosophy of Presidential Decree No. 1508, otherwise known as the Katarungang Pambarangay Law, and the policy behind it would be better served if an out-of-court settlement of the case is reached voluntarily by the parties.

“The primordial objective of Presidential Decree No. 1508 is to reduce the number of court litigations and prevent the deterioration of the quality of justice which has been brought by the indiscriminate filing of cases in the courts. To ensure this objective, Section 6 of Presidential Decree No. 1508 requires the parties to undergo a conciliation process before the Lupon Chairman or the Pangkat ng Tagapagkasundo as a precondition to filing a complaint in court subject to certain exceptions which are inapplicable to this case. The said section has been declared compulsory in nature.

“Presidential Decree No. 1508 is now incorporated in Republic Act No. 7160, otherwise known as The Local Government Code, which took effect on 1 January 1992.”

Applying the above-quoted decision to your situation, the main objective of the barangay justice system is to ease the congestion of cases in courts. Compliance with the barangay justice system is compulsory; hence, you do not have the discretion to file your complaint directly with the court, unless the nature of your civil or criminal complaint falls under Section 412 (b) of RA 7160, which enumerated the instances where a party may go directly to the court/prosecutor’s office.

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.

We appreciate your 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]