1.

) CIRCULAR 14-93

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.

1) UY v. CONTRERAS | 1994: dismissed due to non-compliance with the requirement of lupon

2) CANDIDO v. MACAPAGAL| 1993: Where the complaint does not state that it is one of the excepted cases, or it does not
allege prior availment of said conciliation process, or it does not have a certification that no conciliation or settlement had
been reached by the parties, the case could be dismissed on motion. In the instant case, the fact that petitioners and private
respondent, reside in the same municipality of Obando, Bulacan does not justify compulsory conciliation under P.D. No.
1508 where the other co-defendants reside in barangays of different municipalities, cities and provinces.
3) ALINSUGAY v. CAGAMPANG | 1986: Respondent judge erred in dismissing the case for not complying with the
condition precedent of the Katarungang Pambarangay because the petitioner has obviously complied with such
4) MORATA v. SPS GO | 1983: Therefore, for the guidance of the bench and the bar, We now declare that 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. Case must be dismissed for not complying with the condition precedent
5) LEDESMA v. CA | 1992: Petitioner's non-compliance with Secs. 6 and 9 of P.D. 1508 legally barred her from pursuing the
ejectment case in the MTC of Manila.
6) VINZONS v. CA | 1999

Sec. 6. Conciliation, pre-condition to filing of complaint. No complaint, petition, action or proceeding

involving any matter within the authority of the Lupon as provided in Section 2 hereof shall be filed or
instituted in court or any other government office for adjudication unless there has been a confrontation of
the parties before the Lupon chairman or the Pangkat . . . .

Referral to the Lupon Chairman or the Pangkat should be made prior to the filing of the ejectment case
under PD 1508.

MEDIATION = process where LUPON CHAIRPERSON or BARANGAY CHAIRPERSON assists the disputing
parties to reach a settlement by consensus that jointly satisfies their needs
CONCILIATION = process wherein the PANGKAT forgoes the power to decide or recommend but assist
the parties to isolate issues and options to reach a settlement by consensus that jointly satisfies their
needs

What happens if in mediation, the parties havent come to an amicable settlement, can they now elevate
the case to the court?
NO! The parties still have to go to the conciliation proceedings
Punong barangay will constitute the pangkat ng tagapagsundo w/in 15 days from the last day of
the mediation proceedings

CONCILIATION v. MEDIATION
The processes are the same EXCEPT mediation is done by the PUNONG BARANGAY while
conciliation is done by the PANGKAT, headed by a CHAIRPERSON
Just like mediation, conciliation is merely intervening between 2 or more contending parties in
order to prevent or put an end to dispute w/o an agreement to abide by the decision of the
conciliator
ARBITRATION = process wherein the 3rd party from outside the judicial system is chosen by parties to
hear and decide their dispute
Arbitration is another way of settling disputes wherein the parties agree to be bound by a decision
of a 3rd person or body in place of a regularly organized tribunal
Can take place at any stage of the proceedings AS LONG AS BOTH PARTIES AGREE IN WRITING TO
ABIDE BY THE ARBITRARTION AWARD OF THE LUPON OR THE PANGKAT
o Aka, the lupon chairperson or punong barangay or the pangkat chairperson can act as an
arbitrator
ARBITRATION v. CONCILATION and MEDIATION
o MEDIATION and CONCILIATION: Lupon chairperson or pangkat SIMPLY ASSISTS THE
PARTIES IN DEFINING THE ISSUES AND EXPLORING SOLUTIONS TO DEVELOP A
MUTUALLY ACCEPTED SETTLEMENT.
o ARBITRATION: lupon chairperson or pangkat is GIVEN THE POWER TO RENDER
DECISIONS ON THE DISPUTE WITH A PRIOR AGREEMENT OF THE PARTIES TO BE BOUND
BY IT, the parties shall present evidence as to the facts and merits of the case to the
arbitrator
On the basis of these facts, arbitrator then makes a decision on what he/she belives
to be fair or just. Arbitrator must be neutral and impartial in making the decision
w/c must also be suitable to the disputing parties