WHAT IS THE PROCEDURE IN THE KATARUNGAN PAMBARANGAY LAW? 1. While the dispute is under mediation conciliation or arbitration, the prescriptive. IT IS VERY IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT NO INDIVIDUAL CAN GO DIRECTLY TO COURT OR ANY GOVERNMENT OFFICE FOR ADJUDICATION OF HIS/HER . Pambarangay Law? As a general rule, all disputes may be the subject of barangay conciliation before the Katarungang Pambarangay, except for the following.

Author: Mikakree Voodoodal
Country: Bosnia & Herzegovina
Language: English (Spanish)
Genre: Literature
Published (Last): 18 July 2018
Pages: 204
PDF File Size: 19.54 Mb
ePub File Size: 4.42 Mb
ISBN: 561-9-50529-783-8
Downloads: 77869
Price: Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]
Uploader: Dagore

And is it not a grievous error on the part of the CA if it virtually katarunganng the filing of an information, as here, despite a categorical statement from the Secretary of Justice about the lack of evidence to proceed with the prosecution of the petitioner?

Maintaining her stance, Agbayani raised the following, to wit: 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: After careful evaluation and consideration of the evidence on record, we find merit in the instant petition. Even the Rules of Court reflects this principle.

That the appealed resolution is interlocutory in nature, except when it suspends the proceedings based on the alleged existence of a prejudicial question. We reiterate what we have stated i n Yao v.

The system exists to help decongest the regular courts and works mostly as “alternative, community-based mechanism for dispute resolution of conflicts,” [1] also described as a “compulsory mediation process at the village level. He may, motu proprio or upon motion, dismiss the petition for review on any of the following grounds: The petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied in a Resolution [9] dated June 25, The gravity depends upon: Petitioner Agbayani alleged that Undersecretary Pineda unfairly heeded only to the arguments interposed by respondent Genabe in her comment; and the CA, in turn, took his findings and reasoning as gospel truth.

We find no merit in the above arguments. Surely, this power of the Secretary of Justice to review includes the discretion to accept additional evidence from the investigating prosecutor or from herein respondent Genabe, evidence which nonetheless appears to have already been submitted to the investigating prosecutor but inadvertently omitted by her when she filed her petition.

Respondent Genabe actually mentioned on page 2 of her petition for review to the DOJ the name of the petitioner as the private complainant, as well as indicated the latters address on the last page thereof as RTC BranchLas Pias City. On petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court is the Decision [1] dated March 27, of the Court of Appeals CA dismissing the petition for certiorari and the Resolution [2] dated July 3, denying the motion for reconsideration thereof in CA-G.


In the interest of substantial justice, procedural rules of the most mandatory character in terms of compliance, may be relaxed. We rule that his determination that the defamation was uttered while the respondent was in extreme excitement or in a state of passion and obfuscation, rendering her offense of lesser gravity than if it had been made with cold and calculating deliberation, is beyond the ambit of our review.

It is well to be reminded, first of all, that the rules of procedure should be viewed as mere instruments designed to facilitate the attainment of justice.

Respondent Genabe was of a highly volatile personality prone to throw fits sumpongswho thus shared a hostile working environment with her co-employees, particularly with her superiors, Agbayani and Hon.

In fact, at least seven 7 of these documents were copies of her own submissions to the investigating prosecutor. Retrieved 16 December Supreme Court Administrative Circular. Thus, technical rules of procedure like those under Sections 5 and 6 thereof should be interpreted in such a way to promote, not frustrate, justice. It is operated by the smallest of the local government unitsthe barangayand is overseen by the barangay captainthe highest elected official of the barangay and its executive.

As shown by the records, the parties herein are residents of Las Pias City. All told, we find that the CA did not commit reversible error in upholding the Resolution dated May 17, of the DOJ as we, likewise, find the same to be in accordance with law and jurisprudence. Perez[24] succinctly summarizes the general rules relative to criminal prosecution: In other words, if strict adherence to the letter of the law would result in absurdity and manifest injustice, or where the merit of a party’s cause is apparent and outweighs consideration of non-compliance with certain formal requirements, procedural rules should definitely be liberally construed.

They do pamgarangay constitute a court katwrungang they do not have judicial powers. There has long been a traditional, local system of resolving disputes. Coming now to the DOJ’s finding that the c omplaint fails to state a cause of action, the CA held that the DOJ committed no grave abuse of discretion in causing the dismissal thereof on the ground of non-compliance with the provisions of the Local Government Code ofon the Katarungang Pambarangay conciliation procedure.


Katarungang Pambarangay

Neither has she shown that the oral defamation caused on her was so grave as to merit a penalty of more than one year. The Court further stated in Guy that when the DOJ Secretary took cognizance of the petitioner’s motion for reconsideration, he effectively excepted such motion from the operation of the aforequoted Section 13 of DOJ Circular No.

Besides “hybrid courts”, other authors have described the system as a “Non-State Justice System”. Retrieved from ” https: It is not sufficient that a tribunal, in the exercise of its power, abused its discretion; such abuse must be grave. He may dismiss the complaint forthwith, if he finds the charge insufficient in form or substance, or without any ground.

It is true that the general rule in statutory construction is that the words shall, must, ought, or should are words of mandatory character in common parlance and in their in ordinary signification, [31] yet, it is also well-recognized in law pambarangau equity as a kataurngang absolute and inflexible criterion.

Disposition of the appeal.


laq Alfredo Flores Tadiar was the principal author of Presidential DecreeThe Katarungang Pambarangay Law, [8] and he also wrote its implementing rulesrequiring prior conciliation as a condition for judicial recourse. It is grave slander when it is of a serious and insulting nature.

Here, petitioner Agbayani failed to show that the instant case is not one of the exceptions enumerated above. The complaint-affidavit, however, failed to show that the instant case was previously referred to the barangay for conciliation in compliance with Sections andparagraph dof the Local Government Code, which provides: From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

This show of liberality is, to us, within the competence of the DOJ Secretary to make. Findings of the Secretary of Justice are not subject to review unless made with grave abuse of discretion.

Katarungang Pambarangay – Wikipedia

As we said in Santos v. Moreover, a computer verification requested by the petitioner showed that the prosecutor assigned to the case had received a copy of the petitioners comment. That the offense has already prescribed; and.