CIRCULAR NO.

14-93 July 15, 1993

TO: ALL REGIONAL TRIAL COURTS, METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURTS, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURTS AND
MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURTS

SUBJECT: GUIDELINES ON THE KATARUNGANG PAMBARANGAY CONCILIATION PROCEDURE TO PREVENT

CIRCUMVENTION OF THE REVISED KATARUNGANG PAMBARANGAY LAW (SECTIONS 399-422, CHAPTER VII,
TITLE I, BOOK III, R.A. 7160. OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE OF 1991).

The Revised Katarungang Pambarangay Law under R.A. 7160, otherwise known as the local Government Code of
1991, effective on January 1, 1992, and which repealed P.D. 1508, introduced substantial changes not only in the
authority granted to the Lupong Tagapamayapa but also in the procedure to be observed in the settlement of
disputes within the authority of the Lupon.

In order that the laudable purpose of the law may not be subverted and its effectiveness undermined by
indiscriminate, improper and/or premature issuance of certifications to file actions in court by the Lupon or
Pangkat Secretaries, attested by the Lupon/Pangkat Chairmen, respectively, the following guidelines are hereby
issued for the information of trial court judges in cases brought before them coming from the Barangays:

I. 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(formerly P.D. 1508, repealed and now replaced by Secs. 399-422, Chapter VII, Title I, Book III, and Sec. 515, Title I,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, except in the following disputes:

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).

II. Under the provisions of R.A. 7160 on Katarungang Pambarangay conciliation, as implemented by the
Katarungang Pambarangay Rules and Regulations promulgated by the Secretary of Justice, the certification for
filing a complaint in court or any government office shall be issued by Barangay authorities only upon compliance
with the following requirements:

1. Issued by the Lupon Secretary and attested by the Lupon Chairman (Punong Barangay), certifying that a
confrontation of the parties has taken place and that a conciliation settlement has been reached, but the same has
been subsequently repudiated (Sec. 412, Revised Katarungang Pambarangay Law; Sec. 2[h], Rule III, Katarungang
Pambarangay Rules);

2. Issued by the Pangkat Secretary and attested by the Pangkat Chairman, certifying that:

a. a confrontation of the parties took place but no conciliation/settlement has been reached (Sec. 4[f], Rule III,
Katarungang Pambarangay Rules; or

b. that no personal confrontation took place before the Pangkat through no fault of the complainant (Sec. 4[f],
Rule III, Katarungang Pambarangay Rules).

3. Issued by the Punong Barangay, as requested by the proper party on the ground of failure of settlement
where the dispute involves members of the same indigenous cultural community, which shall be settled in
accordance with the customs and traditions of that particular cultural community, or where one or more of the
parties to the aforesaid dispute belong to the minority and the parties mutually agreed to submit their dispute to
the indigenous system of amicable settlement, and there has been no settlement as certified by the datu or tribal
leader or elder to the Punong Barangay of place of settlement (Secs. 1,4 & 5, Rule IX, Katarungang Pambarangay
Rules); and

4. If mediation or conciliation efforts before the Punong Barangay proved unsuccessful, there having been no
agreement to arbitrate (Sec. 410 [b], Revised Katarungang Pambarangay Law; Sec. 1, c. (1), Rule III, Katarungang
Pambarangay Rules), or where the respondent fails to appear at the mediation proceeding before the Punong
Barangay (3rd par. Sec. 8, a, Rule VI, Katarungang Pambarangay Rules), the Punong Barangay shall not cause the
issuance at this stage of a certification to file action, because it is now mandatory for him to constitute the Pangkat
before whom mediation, conciliation, or arbitration proceedings shall be held.

III. All complaints and/or informations filed or raffled to your sala/branch of the Regional Trial Court shall be
carefully read and scrutinized to determine if there has been compliance with prior Barangay conciliation
procedure under the Revised Katarungang Pambarangay Law and its Implementing Rules and Regulations, as a
pre-condition to judicial action, particularly whether the certification to file action attached to the records of the
case comply with the requirements hereinabove enumerated in par. II;

IV. A case filed in court without compliance with prior Barangay conciliation which is a pre-condition for
formal adjudication (Sec. 412 [a] of the Revised Katarungang Pambarangay Law) may be dismissed upon motion of
defendant/s, not for lack of jurisdiction of the court but for failure to state a cause of action or prematurity
(Royales vs. IAC, 127 SCRA 470; Gonzales vs. CA, 151 SCRA 289), or the court may suspend proceedings upon
petition of any party under Sec. 1, Rule 21 of the Rules of Court; and refer the case motu proprio to the appropriate
Barangay authority, applying by analogy Sec. 408 [g], 2nd par., of the Revised Katarungang Pambarangay Law
which reads as follows:

The court in which non-criminal cases not falling within the authority of the Lupon under this Code are filed may at
any time before trial, motu proprio refer case to the Lupon concerned for amicable settlement.

Strict observance of these guidelines is enjoined. This Administrative Circular shall be effective immediately.

Manila, Philippines. July 15, 1993.

CHAPTER VII

Katarungang Pambarangay

Section 399. Lupong Tagapamayapa. -

(a) There is hereby created in each barangay a lupong tagapamayapa, hereinafter referred to as the lupon,
composed of the punong barangay, as chairman and ten (10) to twenty (20) members. The lupon shall be
constituted every three (3) years in the manner provided herein.

(b) Any person actually residing or working, in the barangay, not otherwise expressly disqualified by law, and
possessing integrity, impartiality, independence of mind, sense of fairness, and reputation for probity, may be
appointed a member of the lupon.

(c) A notice to constitute the lupon, which shall include the names of proposed members who have expressed their
willingness to serve, shall be prepared by the punong barangay within the first fifteen (15) days from the start of
his term of office. Such notice shall be posted in three (3) conspicuous places in the barangay continuously for a
period of not less than three (3) weeks;

(d) The punong barangay, taking into consideration any opposition to the proposed appointment or any
recommendations for appointment as may have been made within the period of posting, shall within ten (10) days
thereafter, appoint as members those whom he determines to be suitable therefor. Appointments shall be in
writing, signed by the punong barangay, and attested to by the barangay secretary.

(e) The list of appointed members shall be posted in three (3) conspicuous places in the barangay for the entire
duration of their term of office; and

(f) In barangays where majority of the inhabitants are members of indigenous cultural communities, local systems
of settling disputes through their councils of datus or elders shall be recognized without prejudice to the applicable
provisions of this Code.

Section 400. Oath and Term of Office. - Upon appointment, each lupon member shall take an oath of office before
the punong barangay. He shall hold office until a new lupon is constituted on the third year following his
appointment unless sooner terminated by resignation, transfer of residence or place of work, or withdrawal of
appointment by the punong barangay with the concurrence of the majority of all the members of the lupon.
Section 401. Vacancies. - Should a vacancy occur in the lupon for any cause, the punong barangay shall immediately
appoint a qualified person who shall hold office only for the unexpired portion of the term.

Section 402. Functions of the Lupon. - The lupon shall:

(a) Exercise administrative supervision over the conciliation panels provided herein;

(b) Meet regularly once a month to provide a forum for exchange of ideas among its members and the public on
matters relevant to the amicable settlement of disputes, and to enable various conciliation panel members to share
with one another their observations and experiences in effecting speedy resolution of disputes; and

(c) Exercise such other powers and perform such other duties and functions as may be prescribed by law or
ordinance.

Section 403. Secretary of the Lupon. - The barangay secretary shall concurrently serve as the secretary of the
lupon. He shall record the results of mediation proceedings before the punong barangay and shall submit a report
thereon to the proper city or municipal courts. He shall also receive and keep the records of proceedings submitted
to him by the various conciliation panels.

Section 404. Pangkat ng Tagapagkasundo. -

(a) There shall be constituted for each dispute brought before the lupon a conciliation panel to be known as the
pangkat ng tagapagkasundo, hereinafter referred to as the pangkat, consisting of three (3) members who shall be
chosen by the parties to the dispute from the list of members of the lupon.

Should the parties fail to agree on the pangkat membership, the same shall be determined by lots drawn by the
lupon chairman.

(b) The three (3) members constituting the pangkat shall elect from among themselves the chairman and the
secretary. The secretary shall prepare the minutes of the pangkat proceedings and submit a copy duly attested to
by the chairman to the lupon secretary and to the proper city or municipal court. He shall issue and cause to be
served notices to the parties concerned.

The lupon secretary shall issue certified true copies of any public record in his custody that is not by law otherwise
declared confidential.
Section 405. Vacancies in the Pangkat. - Any vacancy in the pangkat shall be chosen by the parties to the dispute
from among the other lupon members. Should the parties fail to agree on a common choice, the vacancy shall be
filled by lot to be drawn by the lupon chairman.

Section 406. Character of Office and Service of Lupon Members. -

(a) The lupon members, while in the performance of their official duties or on the occasion thereof, shall be
deemed as persons in authority, as defined in the Revised Penal Code.

(b) The lupon or pangkat members shall serve without compensation, except as provided for in Section 393 and
without prejudice to incentives as provided for in this Section and in Book IV of this Code. The Department of the
Interior and Local Government shall provide for a system of granting economic or other incentives to the lupon or
pangkat members who adequately demonstrate the ability to judiciously and expeditiously resolve cases referred
to them. While in the performance of their duties, the lupon or pangkat members, whether in public or private
employment, shall be deemed to be on official time, and shall not suffer from any diminution in compensation or
allowance from said employment by reason thereof.

Section 407. Legal Advice on Matters Involving Questions of Law. - The provincial, city legal officer or prosecutor or
the municipal legal officer shall render legal advice on matters involving questions of law to the punong barangay
or any lupon or pangkat member whenever necessary in the exercise of his functions in the administration of the
katarungang pambarangay.

Section 408. Subject Matter for Amicable Settlement; Exception Thereto. - The lupon of each barangay shall have
authority to bring together the parties actually residing in the same city or municipality for amicable settlement of
all disputes except:

(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 pesos
(P5,000.00);
(d) Offenses where there is no private 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 an appropriate lupon;

(f) 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;

(g) Such other classes of disputes which the President may determine in the interest of Justice or upon the
recommendation of the Secretary of Justice.

The court in which non-criminal cases not falling within the authority of the lupon under this Code are filed may, at
any time before trial motu propio refer the case to the lupon concerned for amicable settlement.

Section 409. Venue. -

(a) Disputes between persons actually residing in the same barangay shall be brought for amicable settlement
before the lupon of said barangay.

(b) Those involving actual residents of different barangays within the same city or municipality shall be brought in
the barangay where the respondent or any of the respondents actually resides, at the election of the complaint.

(c) All disputes involving real property or any interest therein shall be brought in the barangay where the real
property or the larger portion thereof is situated.

(d) Those arising at the workplace where the contending parties are employed or at the institution where such
parties are enrolled for study, shall be brought in the barangay where such workplace or institution is located.

Objections to venue shall be raised in the mediation proceedings before the punong barangay; otherwise, the same
shall be deemed waived. Any legal question which may confront the punong barangay in resolving objections to
venue herein referred to may be submitted to the Secretary of Justice, or his duly designated representative, whose
ruling thereon shall be binding.
Section 410. Procedure for Amicable Settlement. -

(a) Who may initiate proceeding - Upon payment of the appropriate filing fee, any individual who has a cause of
action against another individual involving any matter within the authority of the lupon may complain, orally or in
writing, to the lupon chairman of the barangay.

(b) Mediation by lupon chairman - Upon receipt of the complaint, the lupon chairman shall within the next working
day summon the respondent(s), with notice to the complainant(s) for them and their witnesses to appear before
him for a mediation of their conflicting interests. If he fails in his mediation effort within fifteen (15) days from the
first meeting of the parties before him, he shall forthwith set a date for the constitution of the pangkat in
accordance with the provisions of this Chapter.

(c) Suspension of prescriptive period of offenses - While the dispute is under mediation, conciliation, or arbitration,
the prescriptive periods for offenses and cause of action under existing laws shall be interrupted upon filing the
complaint with the punong barangay. The prescriptive periods shall resume upon receipt by the complainant of the
complainant or the certificate of repudiation or of the certification to file action issued by the lupon or pangkat
secretary: Provided, however, That such interruption shall not exceed sixty (60) days from the filing of the
complaint with the punong barangay.

(d) Issuance of summons; hearing; grounds for disqualification - The pangkat shall convene not later than three (3)
days from its constitution, on the day and hour set by the lupon chairman, to hear both parties and their witnesses,
simplify issues, and explore all possibilities for amicable settlement. For this purpose, the pangkat may issue
summons for the personal appearance of parties and witnesses before it. In the event that a party moves to
disqualify any member of the pangkat by reason of relationship, bias, interest, or any other similar grounds
discovered after the constitution of the pangkat, the matter shall be resolved by the affirmative vote of the majority
of the pangkat whose decision shall be final. Should disqualification be decided upon, the resulting vacancy shall be
filled as herein provided for.

(e) Period to arrive at a settlement - The pangkat shall arrive at a settlement or resolution of the dispute within
fifteen (15) days from the day it convenes in accordance with this section. This period shall, at the discretion of the
pangkat, be extendible for another period which shall not exceed fifteen (15) days, except in clearly meritorious
cases.

Section 411. Form of settlement. - All amicable settlements shall be in writing, in a language or dialect known to the
parties, signed by them, and attested to by the lupon chairman or the pangkat chairman, as the case may be. When
the parties to the dispute do not use the same language or dialect, the settlement shall be written in the language
known to them.

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.

Section 413. Arbitration. -

(a) The parties may, at any stage of the proceedings, agree in writing that they shall abide by the arbitration award
of the lupon chairman or the pangkat. Such agreement to arbitrate may be repudiated within five (5) days from the
date thereof for the same grounds and in accordance with the procedure hereinafter prescribed. The arbitration
award shall be made after the lapse of the period for repudiation and within ten (10) days thereafter.

(b) The arbitration award shall be in writing in a language or dialect known to the parties. When the parties to the
dispute do not use the same language or dialect, the award shall be written in the language or dialect known to
them.

Section 414. Proceedings Open to the Public; Exception. - All proceedings for settlement shall be public and
informal: Provided, however, That the lupon chairman or the pangkat chairman, as the case may be, may motu
proprio or upon request of a party, exclude the public from the proceedings in the interest of privacy, decency, or
public morals.

Section 415. Appearance of Parties in Person. - In all katarungang pambarangay proceedings, the parties must
appear in person without the assistance of counsel or representative, except for minors and incompetents who
may be assisted by their next-of-kin who are not lawyers.
Section 416. Effect of Amicable Settlement and Arbitration Award. - The amicable settlement and arbitration award
shall have the force and effect of a final judgment of a court upon the expiration of ten (10) days from the date
thereof, unless repudiation of the settlement has been made or a petition to nullify the award has been filed before
the proper city or municipal court.

However, this provision shall not apply to court cases settled by the lupon under the last paragraph of Section 408
of this Code, in which case the compromise or the pangkat chairman shall be submitted to the court and upon
approval thereof, have the force and effect of a judgment of said court.

Section 417. Execution. - The amicable settlement or arbitration award may be enforced by execution by the lupon
within six (6) months from the date of the settlement. After the lapse of such time, the settlement may be enforced
by action in the appropriate city or municipal court.

Section 418. Repudiation. - Any party to the dispute may, within ten (10) days from the date of the settlement,
repudiate the same by filing with the lupon chairman a statement to that effect sworn to before him, where the
consent is vitiated by fraud, violence, or intimidation. Such repudiation shall be sufficient basis for the issuance of
the certification for filing a complaint as hereinabove provided.

Section 419. Transmittal of Settlement and Arbitration. - Award to the Court. - The secretary of the lupon shall
transmit the settlement or the arbitration award to the appropriate city or municipal court within five (5) days
from the date of the award or from the lapse of the ten-day period repudiating the settlement and shall furnish
copies thereof to each of the parties to the settlement and the lupon chairman.

Section 420. Power to Administer Oaths. - The punong barangay, as chairman of the lupong tagapamayapa, and the
members of the pangkat are hereby authorized to administer oaths in connection with any matter relating to all
proceedings in the implementation of the katarungang pambarangay.

Section 421. Administration; Rules and Regulations. - The city or municipal mayor, as the case may be, shall see to
the efficient and effective implementation and administration of the katarungang pambarangay. The Secretary of
Justice shall promulgate the rules and regulations necessary to implement this Chapter.

Section 422. Appropriations. - Such amount as may be necessary for the effective implementation of the
katarungang pambarangay shall be provided for in the annual budget of the city or municipality concerned.
SEC. 32, (1) & (2), B.P. 129, as amended by R.A. No. 7691

"Sec. 32. Jurisdiction of Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts
in Criminal Cases. Except in cases falling within the exclusive original jurisdiction of Regional Trial Courts and of
the Sandiganbayan, the Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts shall
exercise:

"(1) Exclusive original jurisdiction over all violations of city or municipal ordinances committed within their
respective territorial jurisdiction; and

"(2) Exclusive original jurisdiction over all offenses punishable with imprisonment not exceeding six (6) years
irrespective of the amount of fine, and regardless of other imposable accessory or other penalties, including the
civil liability arising from such offenses or predicated thereon, irrespective of kind, nature, value or amount
thereof: Provided, however, That in offenses involving damage to property through criminal negligence, they shall
have exclusive original jurisdiction thereof."
ADMINISTRATIVE CIRCULAR NO. 09-94 June 14, 1994

3. The criminal jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Trial
Courts under Section 32 (2) of B.P. Blg. 129, as amended by R.A. No. 7691, has been increased to cover offenses
punishable with imprisonment not exceeding six (6) years irrespective of the amount of the fine. As a consequence,
the Regional Trial Courts have no more original jurisdiction over offenses committed by public officers and
employees in relation to their office, where the offense is punishable by more than four (4) years and two (2)
months up to six (6) years.

4. The provisions of Section 32 (2) of B.P. 129 as amended by R.A. No. 7691, apply only to offenses punishable
by imprisonment or fine, or both, in which cases the amount of the fine is disregarded in determining the
jurisdiction of the court. However, in cases where the only penalty provided by law is a fine, the amount thereof
shall determine the jurisdiction of the court in accordance with the original provisions of Section 32 (2) of B.P. Blg.
129 which fixed original exclusive jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and
Municipal Circuit Trial Courts over offenses punishable with a fine of not more than four thousand pesos. If the
amount of the fine exceeds four thousand pesos, the Regional Trial Court shall have jurisdiction, including offenses
committed by public officers and employees in relation to their office, where the amount of the fine does not
exceed six thousand pesos.
CIRCULAR NO. 57-97

TO: COURT OF APPEALS, SANDIGANBAYAN, REGIONAL TRIAL COURTS, METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURTS,
MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURTS, MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURTS, ALL MEMBERS OF THE GOVERNMENT
PROSECUTION SERVICE AND ALL MEMBERS OF THE INTEGRATED BAR OF THE PHILIPPINES

SUBJECT: RULES AND GUIDELINES IN THE FILING AND PROSECUTION OF CRIMINAL CASES UNDER BATAS
PAMBANSA BLG. 22.

Any provision of law or the Rules of Court to the contrary notwithstanding, the following rules and guidelines shall
henceforth be observed in the filing and prosecution of all criminal cases under Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 which
penalizes the making or drawing and issuance of a check without funds or credit:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

[1] The criminal action for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 shall be deemed to necessarily include the
corresponding civil action, and no reservation to file such civil action separately shall be allowed or recognized.

[2] Upon the filing of the aforesaid joint criminal and civil action, the offended party shall pay in full the filing fees
based upon the amount of the check involved, which shall be considered as the actual damages claimed, in
accordance with the schedule of filing fees in Section 7(a) and Section 8(a), Rule 141 of the Rules of Court, as last
amended by Administrative Circular No. 11-94 effective August 1, 1994. Where the offended party further seeks to
enforce against the accused civil liability by way of liquidated, moral, nominal, temperate or exemplary damages,
he shall pay the corresponding filing fees therefor based on the amounts thereof as alleged either in his complaint
or in the information. If not so alleged but any of these damages are subsequently awarded by the Court, the
amount of such fees shall constitute a first lien on the judgment.

[3] Where the civil action has heretofore been filed separately and trial thereof has not yet commenced, it may be
consolidated with the criminal action upon application with the Court trying the latter case. If the application is
granted, the trial of both actions shall proceed in accordance with the pertinent procedure outlined in Section 2(a)
of Rule 111 governing the proceedings in the actions as thus consolidated.

[4] This Circular shall be published in two [2] newspaper of general circulation and shall take effect on November
1, 1997.

September 16, 1997.

ADMINISTRATIVE CIRCULAR NO. 13-2001 February 14, 2001

TO : ALL JUDGES

SUBJECT : CLARIFICATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE CIRCULAR NO. 12-2000 ON THE PENALTY FOR VIOLATION OF
BATAS PAMBANSA BLG. 22, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE BOUNCING CHECK LAW.

Clarification has been sought by concerned Judges and other parties regarding the operation of Administrative
Circular 12-2000 issued on 21 November 2000. In particular, queries have been made regarding the authority of
Judges to:

1. Impose the penalty of imprisonment for violations of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22; and

2. Impose subsidiary imprisonment in the event that the accused who is found guilty of violating the provisions of
B.P. Blg. 22, is unable to pay the fine which he is sentenced to pay considering that Administrative Circular No. 12-
2000 adopted the rulings in Eduardo Vaca v. Court of Appeals (G.R. No. 131714, 16 November 1998, 298 SCRA
656) and Rosa Lim v. People of the Philippines (G.R. No. 130038, 18 September 2000) as a policy of the Supreme
Court on the matter of the imposition of penalties for violations of B.P. Blg. 22, without mentioning whether
subsidiary imprisonment could be resorted to in case of the accused's inability to pay the fine.

The clear tenor and intention of Administrative Circular No. 12-2000 is not to remove imprisonment as an
alternative penalty, but to lay down a rule of preference in the application of the penalties provided for in B.P. Blg.
22.

The pursuit of this purpose clearly does not foreclose the possibility of imprisonment for violations of B.P. Blg. 22.
Neither does it defeat the legislative intent behind the law.

Thus, Administrative Circular No. 12-2000 establishes a rule of preference in the application of the penal
provisions of B.P. Blg. 22 such that where the circumstances of both the offense and the offender clearly indicate
good faith or a clear mistake of fact without taint of negligence, the imposition of a fine alone should be considered
as the more appropriate penalty. Needless to say, the determination of whether the circumstances warrant the
imposition of a fine alone rests solely upon the Judge. Should the Judge decide that imprisonment is the more
appropriate penalty, Administrative Circular No. 12-2000 ought not be deemed a hindrance.

It is, therefore, understood that:

1. Administrative Circular 12-2000 does not remove imprisonment as an alternative penalty for violations of B.P.
Blg. 22;

2. The Judges concerned may, in the exercise of sound discretion, and taking into consideration the peculiar
circumstances of each case, determine whether the imposition of a fine alone would best serve the interests of
justice or whether forbearing to impose imprisonment would depreciate the seriousness of the offense, work
violence on the social order, or otherwise be contrary to the imperatives of justice;
3. Should only a fine be imposed and the accused be unable to pay the fine, there is no legal obstacle to the
application of the Revised Penal Code provisions on subsidiary imprisonment.

The issuance of this Administrative Circular was authorized by the Court En Banc in A.M. No. 00-11-01-SC at its
session of 13 February 2001.

The Clerk of Court of the Supreme Court and the Court Administrator shall immediately cause the implementation
of this Administrative Circular.

This Administrative Circular shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation not later than 20 February
2001.

Issued this 14th day of February, 2001.

CIRCULAR NO. 2-90* March 9, 1990

TO: COURT OF APPEALS, REGIONAL TRIAL COURTS, METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURTS, MUNICIPAL TRIAL
COURTS, MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURTS, SHARI'A DISTRICT COURTS AND SHARI'A CIRCUIT COURTS, ALL
MEMBERS OF THE GOVERNMENT PROSECUTION SERVICE, AND ALL MEMBERS OF THE INTEGRATED BAR OF
THE PHILIPPINES

SUBJECT: GUIDELINES TO BE OBSERVED IN APPEALS TO THE COURT OF APPEALS AND TO THE SUPREME
COURT

1. No common mode of appeal to Court of Appeals and Supreme Court. The provisions of rules 41 and 42 of the
Rules of Court, prescribing a common mode of appeal to the Court of Appeals and to the Supreme Court, and a
common procedure for considering and resolving an appeal, are no longer in force. They have been largely
superseded and rendered functus officio by certain statuteswhich wrought substantial changes in the appellate
procedures in this jurisdiction, notably: RepublicActs Nos. 5433 and 5400 (both effective on September 9, 1968)
and 6031 (effective August 4,1969), and Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 (effective August 14, 1981).

2. Appeals from Regional Trial Courts to the Supreme Court. Except in criminal cases where thepenalty imposed is
life imprisonment or reclusion perpetua, judgments of regional trial courts may beappealed to the Supreme Court
only by petition for review on certiorari in accordance with Rule 45of the Rules of Court in relation to Section 17 of
the Judiciary Act of 1948, as amended, 1 this being the clear intendment of the provision of the Interim Rulesthat
"(a)ppeals to the Supreme Court shall be taken by petition for certiorari which shall be governedby Rule 45 of the
Rules of Court." 2

3. Appeals to the Court of Appeals. On the other hand, appeals by certiorari will not lie with theCourt of Appeals.
2a R.A. No. 6657 (1988) provides, however, that appeals from the Agrarian Reform Arbitration Board of the
Department of Agrarian Reform shall be taken to the Court of Appeals by certiorari within 15 days from notice of
final judgment or order (Sec. 54)2a Appeals to that Court from Regional Trial Courts may be taken:

a) by writ error (ordinary appeal) where the appealed judgment was rendered in a civil or criminal action by
the regional trial court in the exercise of its original jurisdiction; or

b) by petition for review where the judgment was rendered by the regional trial court in the exercise of its
appellate jurisdiction.

The mode of appeal in either instance is entirely distinct from an appeal by certiorari to the Supreme Court.

4. Erroneous Appeals. An appeal taken to either the Supreme Court or the Court of Appeals by the wrong or
inappropriate mode shall be dismissed.

a) Appeal to the Supreme Court by notice of appeal. - No appeal may be taken to the Supreme Court from a
judgment of a regional trial court by notice of appeal under Rule 41 of the Rules of Court, regardless of any
statement in the notice that the Supreme Court is the court of choice; and no judge or clerk of a regional trial court,
shall elevate, or cause to be elevated, to the Supreme Court the records of a case thus erroneously
appealed 3 under pain of disciplinary action, said officials, no less than the attorney taking the appeal, being
chargeable with knowledge that the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court may properly be invoked only
through petitions for review on certiorari.

b) Raising factual issues in appeal by certiorari. Although submission of issues of fact in an appeal by certiorari
taken to the Supreme Court from the regional trial court is ordinarily prescribed, the Supreme Court nonetheless
retains the option, in the exercise of its sound discretion and considering the attendant circumstances, either itself
to take cognizance of and decide such issues or to refer them to the Court of Appeals for determination.
c) Raising issues purely of law in the Court of Appeals, or appeal by wrong mode. If an appeal under Rule 41 is
taken from the regional trial court to the Court of Appeals and therein the appellant raises only questions of law,
the appeal shall be dismissed, issues purely of law not being reviewable by said Court. 4 So, too, if an appeal is
attempted from the judgment rendered by a Regional Trial Court in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction by
notice of appeal, instead of by petition for review, the appeal is in efficacious and should be dismissed.

d) No transfer of appeals erroneously taken. no transfers of appeals erroneously taken to the Supreme Court or to
the Court of Appeals to whichever of these Tribunals has appropriate appellate jurisdiction will be
allowed; 5 continued ignorance or willful disregard of the law on appeals will not be tolerated.

e) Duty of counsel. It is therefore incumbent upon every attorney who would seek review of a judgment or order
promulgated against his client to make sure of the nature of the errors he proposes to assign, whether these be of
fact or of law; then upon such basis to ascertain carefully which Court has appellate jurisdiction; and finally, to
follow scrupulously the requisites for appeal prescribed by law, ever aware that any error or imprecision in
compliance may well be fatal to his client's cause. 6

FOR STRICT COMPLIANCE.

March 9, 1990.

(Sgd.) MARCELO B. FERNAN

Chief Justice

Footnotes

* [Based on the Resolution of the Court En Banc in UDK-9748 (Anacleto Murillo v. Rodolfo Consul), March 1, 1990].
1 Limiting the issues appealable to errors or question of law, or questions involving constitutionality or validity of
any treaty, executive agreement, law, ordinance, or executive order or regulation; or the legality of any tax, impost,
assessment, or toll, or penalty imposed in relation thereto; or the jurisdiction of an inferior court, SEE, HOWEVER,
Sec. 54, R.A. No. 6657, in 2a, infra.
2 Par. 25, Sub-Head F., APPEAL TO THE SUPREME COURT; cf., Pars. 16-24, Sub-Head E, APPELLATE PROCEDURE
(in the Intermediate Appellate Court).
N.B. Appeals from any decision, order or ruling of a Constitutional Commission (Civil Service Commission,
Commission on Elections, or Commission on Audit) may, unless otherwise provided bylaw, be brought to the
Supreme Court on certiorari by the aggrieved party within thirty days from receipt of a copy thereof (Sec. 7, ART.
IX, 1987 Constitution)
2a R.A No. 6657 (1988) provides, however, that appeals from the Agrarian Reform Arbitration Board of the
Department of Agrarian Reform shall be take to the Court of Appeals by certiorari within 15 days from notice of
final judgment or order (Sec. 54)
3 In Service Specialists, Inc. v. Sheriff of Manila, 145 SCRA 139, the difference in modes of appeal was once again
emphasized, it being held that an appeal from the order of the trial court which dismissed a petition for relief from
judgment "for lack of jurisdiction to hear and determine the same" "should have been made this Court through a
petition for review on certiorari in accordance with the Judiciary Act of 1948 as amended by Republic Act No. 5440
and Section 25 of the Interim Rules," and not by "a notice of appeal to the Intermediate Appellate Court."
4 SEE fn. 2a, supra.
5 SEC. 13 (second par.), Rule 124, as amended, does speak of a transfer of a criminal case from the Court of Appeals
to this Court, but it has no relation to an erroneously appeal. The section pertinently reads: "Whenever the Court of
Appeals should be of the opinion that the penalty of reclusion perpetua or higher should be imposed in a case, the
Court after discussion of the evidence and the law involved, shall render judgment imposing the penalty
of reclusion perpetua or higher as the circumstances warrant, refrain from entering judgment and forthwith certify
the case and elevate the entire record thereof to the Supreme Court for review."
6 SEE, e.g., Circular No. 1-88, effective January 1, 1989.