The Barangay Justice Sytem
Part 2
On
July 15, 1993, the Supreme Court issued Administrative Circular
No. 14-93 to clarify further the provisions of the revised
Katarungang Pambarangay Law. Accordingly, the circular enumerated
additional exceptions to the jurisdiction of the law, as follows:
(1) Any complaint by or against corporations, partnerships or
juridical entities, since only individuals shall be parties to
Barangay conciliation proceedings either as complainants or
respondents;
(2) 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;
b) Petitions for habeas corpus by a person illegally deprived of
his rightful custody over another or a person illegally deprived
of his liberty or one 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.
(3) Any class of disputes which the President may determine in the
interest of justice or upon the recommendation of the Secretary of
Justice;
(4) Where the dispute arises from the Comprehensive Agrarian
Reform Law;
(5) Labor disputes or controversies arising from employer-employee
relations; and
(6) Actions to annul judgment upon a compromise, which may be
filed directly in court.
More importantly, the issuance of said administrative circular,
which is actually referred to as “Guidelines on the Katarungang
Pambarangay Conciliation Procedure to Prevent Circumvention of the
Revised Katarungang Pambarangay Law,” by the Supreme Court was
impelled apparently by the growing number of violations of the
said law by the very same people who are supposed to implement
them – the barangay officials. It would seem that these officials,
who were once applauded for their efforts to decongest the courts’
dockets by settling disputes at their level, are now being touted,
no less than by the Supreme Court itself, as the primary
circumventors of the law. This is evident in the purpose of the
administrative circular, which states in part that “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
Chairman, x x x.”
Under the law, The Certification To File Action should be issued
only after the Pangkat failed to conciliate the parties. It would
appear that the Lupon Chairman would cause the issuance of said
certification as soon as he fails to settle the parties at his
level.
The procedure for the mediation proceedings goes this way: Upon
filing of the complaint, the Punong Barangay as Lupon Chairman
will summon the parties to appear before him for mediation. If
both parties appear but no settlement is reached, the Lupon is
required to constitute the Pangkat. As soon as the Pangkat is
formed, the parties will again be required to appear before them
for a second round of mediation. Thereafter, if the parties still
had not arrived at a settlement, it is only then that the
certification to file action is issued to the complainant.
The constitution of the Pangkat is also mandatory even if the
respondent fails to appear before the Lupon Chairman. Sensing by
the absence of the respondent to appear before him that forming
the Pangkat would be a waste of time, the Lupon Chairman would
thereafter issue the certification. Expediency and convenience are
not justifications for the circumvention of the law. Besides,
remedies are available to the Lupon Chairman to sanction the
recalcitrant respondent, which include, dismissing his
counter-claim, directing the issuance of a certification to bar
the filing of said counter-claim and applying in court to hold the
respondent in contempt of court.
Circumvention or non-compliance of the procedure for mediation
under the revised Katarungang Pambarangay Law renders the
certification to file action issued thereafter defective if not
void. Consequently, the case, although already filed in court, may
be dismissed upon motion of the defendant on the ground that the
condition precedent for filing the claim has not been complied
with or the court may suspend proceedings upon petition of any
party and refer the case motu proprio to the appropriate barangay
authority.
Finally, it should be pointed out that circumvention or
non-compliance of the procedure has no bearing on the jurisdiction
of the court to try and decide the case already filed in court.
The Certification to File Action is merely a pre-condition for the
filing of the case in court and does not deprive the court of its
jurisdiction. If the same is defective, the lawyer for the
defendant has to seasonably file a motion to dismiss predicated on
the ground aforementioned. Otherwise, the remedy is deemed waived
and the trial court can proceed with the case.
Comments on the article and/or suggestions may be sent to Bragais
Law Office, Paz St., San Francisco, Naga City.
