You are on page 1of 51

KATARUNGANG

PAMBARANGAY
LAW
Significant Changes
■ PD 1508 vs. Katarungan Pambarangay in the LGC 1991
■ It increased the authority of the lupon for criminal offenses from

OLD NEW
30 days 1 year
PHP 200.00 PHP 5,000.00

■ For venue, it provides that conflicts arising from the workplace or educational institutions
shall be filed in the barangay where such is located
■ It suspends the prescriptive period of offenses during the pendency of the mediation or
conciliation or arbitration process
Lupong Tagapamayapa
■ Composition

Chairman Punong Barangay


Members 10-20

■ Constituted every 3 years


■ Qualifications of the Members
– Risiding or working in the barangay
– Not expressly disqualified by law
– Possessing integrity, impartiality, independence of mind
– Sense of fairness, and reputation for probity
■ Constituted by the Lupong Barangay
– NOTICE
■ Include the names of the members who are willing to join
■ Prepared by the Punong Barangay within 15 days of the start of his term.
■ Posted in 3 conspicuous places in the barangay continuously for a period of not
less than 3 weeks.
– The appointment
■ When here is no opposition and after considering recommendations, within 10
days after the period of posting, the PB shall appoint the members.
■ Functions of the Lupon
– Exercise administrative supervision over the conciliation panels to be created
– Meet regularly once a month for a forum of exchange
Pangkat ng Tagapagkasundo
■ A conciliation panel
■ Chosen by the parties from the list of members from the lupon
■ In case the parties cannot agree among each other, the same shall be determined
by lots drawn by the lupon chaitrman
■ The 3 members shall elect from themselves the chairman and secretary.
■ Secretary shall:
– Keep the minutes of the pangkat proceeding
– Submit a copy attested by the chair to the lupon secretary and proper city or
mun. court
■ The lupon secretary shall issue certified copies of public record
Section 408. Subject Matter for Amicable Settlement;
■ 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.
■ Except those enumerated above, the lupon basically has authority to settle amicably
all disputes for parties who reside in the same city or municipality.. The law does not
make any distinction.
■ Those incapable of settlement according to Art 2035, 2034, NCC
– Civil Status of the Person
– The validity of a marriage or legal separation
– Ground for legal separation
– Future support
– The jurisdiction of courts;
– Future legitime and
– Criminal liability
Compromise agreements on these are null and void
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

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.

THE TIMELINE HERE SHOULD BE CONSTRUED TO MEAN THAT IF THE OBLIGATION IN THE SETTLEMENT TO BE ENFORCED IS
DUE AND DEMANDABLE ON THE DATE OF THE SETTLEMENT, Vidal v Escueta
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.
Effect of refusal or failure of any party or
witness to appear before the lupon or
pangkat
■ It may be punished for indirect contempt of court upon the application filed by lupon
chairman, pangkat chairman, or any of contending parties.
■ Refusal or failure shall be reflected in the records of the lupon secretary or the
minutes of the pangkat secretary.
■ It shall bar the complainant who fails to appear from seeking judicial recourse for
the same cause of action
■ The respondent, who refuses to appear, is barred from filing any counterclaim
arising out of, or necessarily connected with the complaint.
■ A pangkat member, who serves as such, is entitled to an honorarium
SPOUSES MORATA v
SPOUSES GO
GR L-62339, Oct 27, 1983
The “ONLY in the RTC level” CASE
■ FACTS:
On August 25, 1982, the spouses Go filed a complaint against petitioners Morata
for recovery of a sum of money plus damages amounting to P49,400.
On the basis of the allegation that the parties-litigants are all residents of Cebu City,
petitioner filed a motion to dismiss citing as grounds the failure of the complaint to
allege prior availment by the plaintiffs of the barangay conciliation process required
by PD 1508, as well as the absence of certification by the Lupon or Pangkat
Secretary that no conciliation/settlement has been reached by the parties.
The motion to dismiss was denied on September 2, 1982. The petitioners' motion
for reconsideration was also denied on October 3, 1982.

■ ISSUE:
Whether the conciliation process at the barangay level, prescribed by PD 1508 as a
precondition for filing a complaint in court, is also compulsory for actions cognizable
by the RTC.
■ HELD:
Yes. Sec.6, PD 1508 provides that the confrontation of the parties and conciliation before
the Lupon is a precondition for filing a complaint, except when:
1. The accused is under detention;
2. A person has otherwise been deprived of personal liberty calling for *habeas corpus*
proceedings;
3. Actions coupled with privisional remedies; and
4. Where the action may be barred by the Statute of Limitations.
■ Sec.2 provides additional exceptions, such as when:
1. One party is the government, or any subdivision or instrumentality;
2. One party is a public officer/employee and the dispute relates to the performance of
his official functions;
3. Offenses punishable by imprisonment exceeding 30 days or a fine exceeding P200;
4. Where there is no private offended party; and
5. Such other classes of disputes which the Prime Minister may, in the inetrest of
justice, determine upon recommendation of the Minister of Justice and the Minister
of Local Government.
■ Thus, except in the instances enumerated in Secs. 2 and 6 of the law, the Lupon has the
authority to settle amicably all types of disputes involving parties who actually reside in the
same city or municipality.
The law makes no distinction whatsoever with respect to the classes of civil disputes that
should be compromised at the barangay level. Where the law does not distinguish, we
should not distinguish.
■ By compelling the disputants to settle their differences through the intervention of the barangay
leader and other respected members of the barangay, the animosity generated by protracted court
litigations between members of the same political unit, a disruptive factor toward unity and
cooperation, is avoided. It must be borne in mind that the conciliation process at the barangay level is
also designed to discourage indiscriminate filing of cases in court in order to decongest its clogged
dockets and enhance the quality of justice dispensed by it.

■ The law obviously intended to grant the Lupon as broad and comprehensive authority as possible as
would bring about the optimum realization of the aforesaid objectives. These objectives would only be
half-met and easily thwarted if the Lupon's authority is exercised only in cases falling within the
exclusive jurisdiction of inferior courts.
Jurisdiction over cases involving real property or any interest therein, except forcible entry and
detainer cases, has always been vested in the Courts of First Instance.

■ The authority of the Lupon is clearly established in Sec.2 of the law; whereas Secs. 11, 12 and 14
deal with the nullification or execution of the settlement or arbitration awards obtained at the
barangay level. These sections conferred upon the city & municipal courts the jurisdiction to pass
upon and resolve petitions or actions for nullification or enforcement of settlement/arbitration
awards issued by the Lupon, regardless of the amount involved or the nature of the original dispute.
But there is nothing in the context of said sections to justify the thesis that the mandated conciliation
process in other types of cases applies excluisively to said inferior courts.

■ Therefore, the conciliation process at the barangay level, prescribed by P.D. 1508 as a pre-condition
for filing a complaint in court, is compulsory not only for cases falling under the exclusive competence
of the metropolitan and municipal trial courts, but for actions cognizable by the regional trial courts
as well.
PEREGRINA v PANIS
133 SCRA 72, GR L-56011, Oct. 31, 1984
The “I conveniently forgot to file a provisional remedy” CASE
FACTS:
Spouses Sanchez filed a Civil Action for Damages against Petitioners Peregrina for
alleged disrespect for the dignity, privacy and peace of mind of the Spouses under
Art.26 of the Civil Code, and for alleged defamation under Art.33 of the same code.
The parties are neighbors in a barangay in Olongapo City. However, no conciliation
proceedings were filed before the Lupon.
Petitioners moved for the dismissal of the Complaint.
Before filing an Opposition, Spouses applied for a Writ of Preliminary Attachment.
Thereafter, Spouses presented their Opposition claiming that under Sec.6(3), PD 1508,
the parties may go directly to the Courts if the Action is coupled with a provisional
remedy such as a Preliminary Attachment.
Respondent Judge granted petitioner’s the motion to dismiss, saying Sps did not comply
for mandatory barangay conciliation. However, on Motion for Reconsideration,
respondent Judge denied the Petitioner’s Motion to Dismiss on the ground that under
Rule 57, Sec.1 of the Rules of Court, the application for attachment can be made at the
commencement of the action or any time thereafter.
ISSUE: WON the seasonable filing of the Provisionary Remedy successfully excluded the
case from the ambit of BRGY conciliation?
HELD: NO
Sec 3 and Sec 6 of PD 1508 makes the conciliation process at the Barangay level a
condition precedent for the filing of a complaint in court. Non-compliance with that
condition precedent could affect the sufficiency of the plaintiff’s cause of action and
make his complaint vulnerable to dismissal on the ground of lack of cause of action or
prematurity. The condition is analogous to exhaustion of administrative
remedies, or the lack of earnest efforts to compromise suits between family members,
lacking which, the case can be dismissed.
The parties therein fall squarely within the ambit of PD 1508. They are actual residents
in the same barangay and their dispute does not fall under any of the excepted cases.
Respondent Judge erred in reconsidering his previous Order of Dismissal on the ground
that the provisional remedy of attachment was seasonably filed. Not only was the
application for that remedy merely an afterthought to circumvent the law,
but also, a writ of attachment is not available in a suit for damages where
the amount, including moral damages, is contingent or unliquidated. Prior
referral to the Lupon for conciliation proceedings, therefore, was indubitably called for.
VIDAL v ESCUETA
GR 156228, Dec. 10, 2003
The “Execution” Case
Art 417
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.

THE TIMELINE HERE SHOULD BE CONSTRUED TO MEAN THAT IF THE OBLIGATION IN THE SETTLEMENT TO BE ENFORCED IS
DUE AND DEMANDABLE ON THE DATE OF THE SETTLEMENT, Vidal v Escueta
Rainier Llanera
LEASEE

LEASEE
SUB-
LEASEE
Mary Liza Santos
Conditional
Sale
LEASEE
SUB-LEASEE

AMICABLE
SETTLEMENT
FACTS:
Abelardo Escueta died intestate on December 3, 1994. He was survived by his widow,
Remedios Escueta, and their six children, respondent Ma. Teresa O. Escueta and her
brother Herman O. Escueta.
Part of his estate was a parcel of land, subject of the present controversy, located at
Mandaluyong City. The property was leased to a certain Rainier Llanera. Sometime in 1999,
Ma. Teresa Escueta, as a co-owner of the property, filed an ejectment case against Llanera
and the sub-lessees before the Lupon of Barangay Highway Hills.
In the meantime, the heirs of Abelardo Escueta executed a deed of conditional sale over the
property, including the house thereon, to Mary Liza Santos for P13,300,000.00. It was
agreed that the remaining balance of the purchase price shall be paid upon vacation of all
the occupants of the subject property.
Escueta and Llanera, and the sub-lessees, executed an "Amicable Settlement;" where they
agreed, among others, that the owners of the property would no longer collect the rentals
due from the lessee and sub-lessees, but with the concomitant obligation to vacate the
property on or before December 1999. Llanera and the other sub-lessees vacated the
leased premises.
The other sublessees, petitioners Ma. Teresa Vidal, Lulu Marquez, Marcelo Trinidad, Carlos
Sobremonte, and Jingkee Ang remained in the property, and requested Escueta for
extensions to vacate the property. Escueta agreed, but despite the lapse of the extensions
granted them, the five sub-lessees refused to vacate the property.
Escueta opted not to have the sub-lessees evicted through the Punong Barangay as provided for in the
amicable settlement. Instead, she filed on May 12, 2000, a verified "Motion for Execution" against the
recalcitrant sub-lessees with the MTC for the enforcement of the amicable settlement and the issuance
of a writ of execution.
Petitioners opposed the. Motion
■ contending that the real party-in -interest as plaintiff, would be the new owners of the property,
and not the Escuetas.
■ that the amicable settlement was not elevated to or approved by the MTC as required by Section
419 of the Local Government Code (LGC), nor approved by a competent court;
■ Respondent must first secure a certification to file an action to file an action for ejectment against
them (417 LGC) the amicable settlement of the parties cannot be substituted by an ajectment suit.
hence, there was no judgment to enforce by a new motion for a writ of execution. As such, the plaintiff's
motion was premature and procedurally improper.
Respondent, having been no execution of the settlement before the Lupon, it may now be enforced by
the action in the proper city or municipality court.
denied the "Motion for Execution." that respondent was not the RPII, as it was already
sold, only vendees have the right to file for ejectment.
On appeal, the rendered a decision holding that the respondent was still the owner
of the property when the ejectment case was filed in the office of the barangay captain, and, as such, is
the real party-in-interest as the plaintiff in the MTC.
which upheld the ruling of the Regional Trial Court. Hence, the present petition.
ISSUE
1. WON respondent is the RPII (YES)
2. WON the method of execution is correct (NO)
HELD:
The Supreme Court denied the petition. The Court upheld the appellate court in holding
that respondent Ma. Teresa O. Escueta is the real party-in-interest to enforce the terms
of the amicable settlement because unless the petitioners vacate the property, the
respondent and the other vendors should not be paid the balance of P1,000,000.00 of
the purchase price of the property under the Deed of Conditional Sale.
The Court, however, ruled that the RTC erred in granting the respondent's motion for a
writ of execution, and the CA erred in denying the petitioners' petition for review.
The amicable settlement executed by the parties before the Lupon on the arbitration
award has the force and effect of a final judgment of a court upon the expiration of ten
(10) days from the date thereof, unless the settlement is repudiated within the period
therefor, where the consent is vitiated by force, violence or intimidation, or a petition to
nullify the award is filed before the proper city or municipal court. The repudiation of the
settlement shall be sufficient basis for the issuance of a certification to file a complaint.
The amicable settlement which is not repudiated within the period therefor may be
enforced by execution by the Lupon through the Punong Barangay within a time line of
six months, and if the settlement is not so enforced by the Lupon after the lapse of the
said period, it may be enforced only by an action in the proper city or municipal court as
provided for in Section 417 of the LGC of 1991
Two-tiered Mode to Execute
The Local Governement Code provides for two-tiered mode to execute the judgement:
■ By execution of the Punong Barangay, which is quasi judicial and Summary in
nature. Covered by the LGC and the Katarungang Pambarangay. The Punong
Baranagy is called upon the hearing to determine solely the fact of non-compliance
and to give the defaulting party another chance to comply.
■ By an action in regular form which remedy is judicial.. Covered by the ROC. The
cause of action is the amicable settlement itself, which by law has the force and
effect of a final judgement.
Art 417 of the LGC grants 6 months to enforce the amicable settlement by the lupon
before the punong barangay before resorting to filing an action before the MTC. The
raison d etre of the law is to afford the parties a simple, speedy and less expensive
enforcement.
The general rule for the computation of the 6 months is from the date of settlement. But
because of the circumstances of this case, applying such rule would be unjust. Thus, it
was ruled:
■ If the settlement to be enforced is due and demandable on the date of settlement,
count from the settlement.
■ If D&D on a date other than the date of settlement, the period should be counted
from the date the obligation becomes D&D.
The parties executed their Amicable Settlement on May 5, 1999. However, the
petitioners were obliged to vacate the property only in January, 2000, or seven months
after the date of the settlement; hence, the respondent may enforce the settlement
through the Punong Barangay within six months from January 2000 or until June 2000,
when the obligation of the petitioners to vacate the property became due. The
respondent was precluded from enforcing the settlement via an action with the MTC
before June 2000. However, the respondent filed on May 12, 2000 a motion for
execution with the MTC and not with the Punong Barangay . Clearly, the respondent
adopted the wrong remedy. Although the MTC denied the respondent's motion for a writ
of execution, it was for a reason other than the impropriety of the remedy resorted to by
the respondent.
GRANTED
QUIROS v ARJONA
GR 158901, March 9, 2004
The “wala nagkasinabot sa property” Case
Art 416
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.
FACTS:
In Dec 1996, petitioners Proceso Quiros and Leonarda Villegas filed with the office of the
barangay captain of Labney, San Jacinto, Pangasinan, a complaint for recovery of ownership
and possession of a parcel of land located at Labney, San Jacinto, Pangasinan.
Petitioners sought to recover from their uncle Marcelo Arjona, one of the respondents herein,
their lawful share of the inheritance from their late grandmother Rosa Arjona Quiros alias
Doza. In 1997, an amicable settlement was reached between the parties. By reason thereof,
respondent Arjona executed a document denominated as "PAKNAAN" ("Agreement", in
Pangasinan dialect). But the parties failed to include a written document to sufficiently
describe the property.
Petitioners filed a complaint with the MCTC with prayer for the issuance of a writ of execution
of the compromise agreement which was denied because the subject property cannot be
determined with certainty. The RTC reversed the decision of the municipal court on appeal
and ordered the issuance of the writ of execution. Respondents appealed to the CA, which
reversed the decision of the RTC and reinstated the decision of the MCTC.

ISSUE: WON the amicable settlement attains the status of finality where there is no
repuditation.
HELD:
Yes, but there are exemptions, case at bar.
Petition denied.

Generally, the rule is that where no repudiation was made during the 10-day period, the
amicable settlement attains the status of finality and it becomes the ministerial duty of the court
to implement and enforce it. However, such rule is not inflexible for it admits of certain
exceptions. In the case at bar, the ends of justice would be frustrated if a writ of execution is
issued considering the uncertainty of the object of the agreement. To do so would open the
possibility of error and future litigations.
It appears that while the paknaan was prepared and signed by respondent, petitioners acceded
to the terms by not disputing the contents and now seeking its enforcement. The cause of the
contract is the delivery of the petitioner’s share in the inheritance. The inability of the municipal
court to identify the exact location of the property did not negate the principal object of the
contract.

Both parties acknowledge that petitioners are entitled to their inheritance, hence, the remedy of
nullification, which invalidates the Paknaan, would prejudice petitioners and deprive them of
their just share of the inheritance. Respondent cannot, as an afterthought, be allowed to renege
on his legal obligation to transfer the property to its rightful heirs. A refusal to reform the
Paknaan under such circumstances would have the effect of penalizing one party for negligent
conduct, and at the same time permitting the other party to escape the consequences of his
negligence and profit thereby. No person shall be unjustly enriched at the expense of another.
ATTY. MAGNO v ATTY
JACOBA
AC No. 6296, Nov 22, 2005
The “atty vs atty” Case
Art 415
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.
FACTS:
Atty. Magno charged Atty. Jacoba w/ willful violation of the Sec. 415 of the LGC of 1991 & Canon 4
of the CPR as the latter allegedly acted as the Lawyer of Lorenzo Inos for land dispute
Atty. Magno was the niece of Lorenzo Inos & they had a disagreement over landscaping contract
they entered into w/c was brought before the Brgy. Captain of San Pascual, Talavera, Nueva Ecija
– At the Brgy. Conciliation: Atty. Jacoba clothed w/ SPA from Inos appeared for the latter
accompanied by his son, Lorenzito w/c was objected by Atty. Magno
– Respondent’s Contention: Inos is entitled to be represented by a lawyer since Atty. Magno
herself is also a lawyer w/c was rebutted that it was just incidental
– Atty. Jacoba later responded that she is appearing as an atty-in-fact and not as a counsel
of Inos
Evidence against Atty. Jacoba:
– Atty. J asked for an ocular inspection of the land and an oral argument between Magno, Jr
& Lorenzito arose w/c made Atty. J to have the incident recorded in the brgy. Blotter
– Inos appeared before the court on Jan 2003 w/ the assistance of Atty. J & she also signed
as a witness during the said appearance
– Sumbong – sent to the Punong Brgy --- she signed representing herself as the Family Legal
Counsel of Inos Family
ISSUE: W/N respondent can validly represent the Inos in a Brgy. Conciliation? (NO)
HELD:
NO
Sec. 415 of the LGC –KPL - appearance of parties in person is mandatory w/o the
assistance of counsel except for minors incompetent who may be assisted by their next
of kin who are not lawyers
Prohibition – applies to all KB proceedings === Sec. 412 (a) of the LGC clearly provides
that as a precondition to the filing of a complaint in court, the parties shall go through
the conciliation process either before the lupon chairman or the lupon/pangkat
tagapamayapa
TAPOS
Section 426. Powers and Functions of the
Sangguniang Kabataan
The sangguniang kabataan shall:

(a) Promulgate resolutions necessary to carry out the objectives of the youth in the barangay in accordance with the applicable
provisions of this Code;

(b) Initiate programs designed to enhance the social, political, economic, cultural, intellectual, moral, spiritual, and physical
development of the members;

(c) Hold fund-raising activities, the proceeds of which shall be tax-exempt and shall accrue to the general fund of the sangguniang
kabataan: Provided, however, That in the appropriation thereof, the specific purpose for which such activity has been held shall be first
satisfied;

(d) Create such bodies or committees as it may deem necessary to effectively carry out its programs and activities;

(e) Submit annual and end-of-term reports to the sangguniang barangay on their projects and activities for the survival and
development of the youth in the barangay;

(f) Consult and coordinate with all youth organizations in the barangay for policy formulation and program implementation;

(g) Coordinate with the appropriate national agency for the implementation of youth development projects and programs at the national
level;

(h) Exercise such other powers and perform such other duties and functions as the sangguniang barangay may determine or delegate;
and

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