Anda di halaman 1dari 35

WHAT LAW GOVERNS THE

KATURANGANG PAMBARANGAY?
• Republic Act Number (RA) 7160 otherwise
known as the Local Government Code of
1991.
• sections 399 to 422, Chapter VII, Title I, Book
III, and section 515, Title I, Book IV, of the
Local Government Code
• Also, The Supreme Court issued
“Administrative Circular No. 14-93 on July 15,
1993” directing the courts to ensure
compliance with the requirement of prior
recourse to the Barangay Justice as a condition
for filing a complaint in court for cases that
are covered by the system.
IS THE BARANGAY A COURT UNDER
THE KATARUNGANG PAMBARANGAY?
Do we have a “Barangay Court”?
• A: No. Barangay Officials do not have judicial
powers. They are simply authorized to do
conciliation or mediation so that disputes that
are within their jurisdiction will no longer
reach the courts and therefore will help in the
declogging of court dockets.
JURISDICTION
• Jurisdiction over the Parties
• Jurisdiction over the Subject Matter
• Jurisdiction over the Place
JURISDICTION
Under section 408 of the Local
Government Code, the Lupon of each
Barangay shall have jurisdiction to
amicably settle all disputes between
parties residing in the same city or
municipality
EXCEPTIONS
• a. Where one party is the government or any
subdivision or instrumentality thereof;
• b. Where one party is a public officer or
employee, and the dispute relates to the
performance of his official functions;
• c. Offenses punishable by imprisonment
exceeding one (1) year or a fine exceeding Five
Thousand (Php5,000.00) Pesos;
• d. Offenses where there is no offended party;
• e. Where the dispute involves real properties located in
different cities or municipalities unless the parties thereto
agree to submit their differences to amicable settlement by
appropriate lupon;
• f. Disputes involving parties who actually reside in different
barangays of different cities and municipalities except
where such barangay units adjoin each other and the
parties thereto agree to submit their differences to
amicable settlement by appropriate lupon; and,
• g. Such other classes of disputes which the President may
determine in the interest of justice or upon
recommendation by the Secretary of Justice.
Administrative Matter no. 14-93
• All disputes are subject to Barangay
conciliation pursuant to the Revised
Katarungang Pambarangay Law (formerly P.D.
1508, repealed and now replaced by Secs.
399-422, Chapter VII, Title I, Book III, and Sec.
515, Title I, Book IV, R.A. 7160, otherwise
known as the Local Government Code of
1991), and prior recourse thereto is a pre-
condition before filing a complaint in court or
any government offices
Exceptions
• 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
barangays 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).
CAN A CORPORATION OR JURIDICAL PERSON BE A PARTY
UNDER THE KATARUNGANG PAMBARANGAY?

NO. A JURIDICAL PERSON OR CORPORATION


LIKE A COOPERATIVE CAN NOT FILE A
COMPLAINT BECAUSE IT IS NOT A PARTY TO
AMICABLE SETTLEMENT. ANY CASE INVOLVING
COOPERATIVE OR PEOPLE‛S ORGANIZATION CAN
GO DIRECTLY TO COURT WITHOUT GOING
THROUGH MEDIATION OR CONCILIATION. [Sec 1
(b-1), Rule III, Katarungan Pambarangay Rules].
• If some of the contending parties are government
subdivisions or government officials while the others
are not, is there a need to undergo mediation in the
Barangay?
• A: The Supreme Court in the case of GEGARE vs CA,
G.R. No. 83907 promulgated September 13, 1989,
declared that the purpose of confrontation is to enable
the parties to settle their differences amicably. If the
other only contending party is the government or its
instrumentality or subdivision the case falls within the
exception but when it is only one of the contending
parties, a confrontation should still be undertaken
among the other parties.
• During a barangay fiesta, accused boxed a
resident of that Barangay. The case was filed
without undergoing Barangay conciliation. The
accused raised premature filing as a defense citing
that even if he is from another town, he has a store
in that Barangay. Is the contention of the accused
tenable?
• A: The Lupon shall have no jurisdiction over disputes
where the parties are not actual residents of the
same city or municipality.
QUESTION
• While on foot patrol in the Barangay, Gerry, a
Tanod, was boxed by Bart when the former
stopped the latter in making public disturbance.
Gerry did not intend to file a case against Bart
knowing that he suffered slight injuries only. As
the days went by, Bart was bragging that he
assaulted Gerry which prompted Gerry to file a
case against Bart. Upon noticing that the incident
happened five days ago, and Gerry suffered slight
physical injuries only, the PNP referred the case
to the Punong Barangay. Is the referral proper?
• A: Not proper. The case is not cognizable by
the Lupon. Gerry is a public officer and the
disputes relates to the performance of his
duties. Further, the case is Direct Assault
Against an Agent of Person in Authority which
carries a penalty of more than 1 year
imprisonment.
Other Cases Cognizable by the Lupon
• UNLAWFUL USE OF MEANS OF PUBLICATION AND
UNLAWFUL UTTERANCES (ART. 154);
• ALARMS AND SCANDALS (ART. 155);
• USING FALSE CERTIFICATES (ART. 175);
• USING FICTITIOUS NAMES AND CONCEALING
TRUE NAMES (ART. 178);
• ILLEGAL USE OF UNIFORMS AND INSIGNIAS (ART.
179);
• PHYSICAL INJURIES INFLICTED IN A TUMULTUOUS
AFFRAY (ART. 252);
• GIVING ASSISTANCE TO CONSUMMATED SUICIDE
(ART. 253);
• RESPONSIBILITY OF PARTICIPANTS IN A DUEL IF
ONLY PHYSICAL INJURIES ARE INFLICTED OR NO
PHYSICAL INJURIES HAVE BEEN INFLICTED (ART.
260);
• LESS SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURIES (ART. 265);
• SLIGHT PHYSICAL INJURIES AND MALTREATMENT
(ART. 266);
• UNLAWFUL ARREST (ART. 269);
• INDUCING A MINOR TO ABANDON HIS/HER HOME (ART.
• 271);
• ABANDONMENT OF A PERSON IN DANGER AND ABANDONMENT
OF ONE’S OWN VICTIM (ART. 275);
• ABANDONING A MINOR (A CHILD UNDER SEVEN [7] YEARS
• OLD) (ART. 276);
• ABANDONMENT OF A MINOR BY PERONS ENTRUSTED WITH
HIS/HER CUSTODY; INDIFFERENCE OF PARENTS (ART. 277);
• QUALIFIED TRESSPASS TO DWELLING (WITHOUT THE USE OF
• VIOLENCE AND INTIMIDATION). (ART. 280);
• OTHER FORMS OF TRESSPASS (ART. 281);
• LIGHT THREATS (ART. 283);
• OTHER LIGHT THREATS (ART. 285);
• GRAVE COERCION (ART. 286);
• LIGHT COERCION (ART. 287);
• OTHER SIMILAR COERCIONS (COMPULSORY PURCHASE OF
MERCHANDISE AND PAYMENT OF WAGES BY MEANS OF
TOKENS). (ART. 288);
• FORMATION, MAINTENANCE AND PROHIBITION OF
COMBINATION OF CAPITAL OR LABOR THROUGH VIOLENCE
OR THREATS (ART 289);
• DISCOVERING SECRETS THROUGH SEIZURE AND
CORRESPONDENCE (ART. 290);
• REVEALING SECRETS WITH ABUSE OF AUTHORITY
(ART.291);
• THEFT (IF THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY STOLEN DOES NOT EXCEED
P50.00). (ART. 309);
• QUALIFIED THEFT (IF THE AMOUNT DOES NOT EXCEED P500). (ART.
310);
• OCCUPATION OF REAL PROPERTY OR USURPATION OF REAL RIGHTS
IN PROPERTY (ART 312);
• ALTERING BOUNDARIES OR LANDMARKS (ART. 313);
• SWINDLING OR ESTAFA (IF THE AMOUNT DOES NOT EXCEED
P200.00). (ART. 315);
• OTHER FORMS OF SWINDLING (ART. 316);
• SWINDLING A MINOR (ART. 317);
• OTHER DECEITS (ART. 318);
• REMOVAL, SALE OR PLEDGE OF MORTGAGED
PROPERTY (ART. 319);
• SPECIAL CASES OF MALICIOUS MISCHIEF (IF THE VALUE
OF THE DAMAGED PROPERTY DOES NOT EXCEED
P1,000.00 (ART 328);
• OTHER MISCHIEFS (IF THE VALUE OF THE DAMAGED
PROPERTY DOES NOT EXCEED P1,000.00). (ART. 329);
• SIMPLE SEDUCTION (ART. 338);
• ACTS OF LASCIVIOUSNESS WITH THE CONSENT OF THE
OFFENDED PARTY (ART 339);
• THREATENING TO PUBLISH AND OFFER TO PREVENT
SUCH PUBLICATION FOR COMPENSATION (ART. 356);
• PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF ACTS REFERRED TO IN
THE COURSE OF OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS (ART. 357);
• INCRIMINATING INNOCENT PERSONS (ART. 363);
• INTRIGUING AGAINST HONOR (ART. 364);
• ISSUING CHECKS WITHOUT SUFFICIENT FUNDS (BP 22);
• FENCING OF STOLEN PROPERTIES IF THE PROPERTY
INVOLVED IS NOT MORE THAN P50.00 (PD 1612).
Lupon has Jurisdiction over the dispute
but a case must be filed directly in
Court
• What are the instances where cases cognizable
by the Lupon must be filed directly in Court? A:
In the following instances:
• a. Where the accused is under detention;
• b. Where the person has otherwise been
deprived of personal liberty calling for a habeas
corpus proceedings;
• c. Where the action is coupled with provisional
remedies such as injunction, attachment, delivery
of personal properties, support, etc
• d. Where the dispute arises from the
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL).
Note: It is the Barangay Agrarian Reform Council
(BARC) that will take charge of the dispute.
• e. Labor disputes or controversies arising from
employer-employee relationship.
• f. Violence against Women and Children (VAWC)
cases except issuance of Protection Orders
QUESTION
• Bart boxed Franz causing less serious injuries.
The police apprehended Bart immediately
after the incident. The investigator asked if he
will file the case for inquest or refer the case
to the Barangay because of the penalty of the
crime which is imprisonment of one month
and one day to six months only?
• A: File the case for inquest because the
offender is under detention.
QUESTION
• Gerry and Franzen are live-in partners and the
mauling incident happened three days ago
when it was reported to the police. Should the
the case be referred to the Barangay?
• A: No. File the case in the Prosecutor’s Office
for preliminary investigation. Mediation in the
barangay involving violations of the VAWC law
is discouraged.