XIV.

ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION 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.
A. Katarungang Pambarangay System
1. RA 7160, Sec. 399-422 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
CHAPTER VII unexpired portion of the term.
Katarungang Pambarangay
Section 402. Functions of the Lupon. - The lupon shall:
Section 399. Lupong Tagapamayapa. -
(a) Exercise administrative supervision over the conciliation panels provided
(a) There is hereby created in each barangay a lupong tagapamayapa, hereinafter herein;
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
(b) Meet regularly once a month to provide a forum for exchange of ideas among
in the manner provided herein.
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
(b) Any person actually residing or working, in the barangay, not otherwise another their observations and experiences in effecting speedy resolution of
expressly disqualified by law, and possessing integrity, impartiality, independence disputes; and
of mind, sense of fairness, and reputation for probity, may be appointed a
member of the lupon.
(c) Exercise such other powers and perform such other duties and functions as
may be prescribed by law or ordinance.
(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
Section 403. Secretary of the Lupon. - The barangay secretary shall concurrently serve as
punong barangay within the first fifteen (15) days from the start of his term of
the secretary of the lupon. He shall record the results of mediation proceedings before the
office. Such notice shall be posted in three (3) conspicuous places in the barangay
punong barangay and shall submit a report thereon to the proper city or municipal courts.
continuously for a period of not less than three (3) weeks;
He shall also receive and keep the records of proceedings submitted to him by the various
conciliation panels.
(d) The punong barangay, taking into consideration any opposition to the
proposed appointment or any recommendations for appointment as may have
Section 404. Pangkat ng Tagapagkasundo. -
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 (a) There shall be constituted for each dispute brought before the lupon a
by the barangay secretary. 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.
(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
Should the parties fail to agree on the pangkat membership, the same shall be
determined by lots drawn by the lupon chairman.
(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 (b) The three (3) members constituting the pangkat shall elect from among
of this Code. 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
Section 400. Oath and Term of Office. - Upon appointment, each lupon member shall take
issue and cause to be served notices to the parties concerned.
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

1
 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
2
 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
3
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.
2. When applicable? Vercide v. Judge Hernandez, A.M. No. MTJ-00-1265, April 6,
2000
Valencides Vercide vs Judge Priscilla Hernandez
AM No. MTJ-00-1265 April 6, 2000
Judge Hernandez was charges for grave abuse of authority and ignorance of the law for her
dismissal of a case which complainant Vericde filed against Galleros for recovery of
possession of land. The land is located in Upper Centro, Tudela, Misamis Occidental.
Defendant Galleros is a resident of the same municipality while complainant are residents
of Dipolog City. Because of this fact, the case was filed in court without prior referral to the
Lupong Tagapamayapa.
Issue:
1. Whether or not the lupon has jurisdiction in this case?
2. Whether or not Judge Hernandez is guilty of grave abuse of authority and ignorance of
the law?
Ruling:
1. No, under Sec. 408 of RA 7160:
“The lupon shall have authority to bring together the parties actually residing in the same
city or municipality for amicable settlement…”
and Sec. 408 (f) and Sec. 2, Rule VI of the Katarungan Pambarangay Rules:
“Exception to amicable settlement: 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”
It is clear that recourse to barangay conciliation proceedings is not necessary where the
parties do not reside in the same municipality or city or in adjoining barangays. Hence, there
is no need for prior referral to the lupon.
2. Yes, Judge Hernandez showed patent ignorance, if not, disregard of this Court’s rulings
on the jurisdiction of the Lupong Tagapamayapa by erroneous quotation of the provisions
of the Katarungan Pambarangay Rules of implementing RA 7160.
3. Jurisdictional? Baares II v. Balising, G.R. 132624, March 13, 2000
4

[G.R. No. 132624. March 13, 2000]
FIDEL M. BAARES II, LILIA C. VALERIANO, EDGAR M. BAARES, EMILIA GATCHALIAN and
FIDEL BESARINO, petitioners, vs. ELIZABETH BALISING, ROGER ALGER, MERLINDA
CAPARIC, EUSTAQUIO R. TEJONES, ANDREA SAYAM, JENNY ISLA, WILMA ROGATERO,
PABLITO ALEGRIA, ROLANDO CANON, EDITHA ESTORES, EDMUNDO DOROYA, TERESITA
GUION, DANNY ANDARAYAN, LOURDES CADAY, ROGELIO MANO, EVANGELINE CABILTES
AND PUBLIC PROSECUTOR OF RIZAL, Antipolo, Rizal, respondents.
DECISION
KAPUNAN, J.:
This is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Decision of the Regional Trial
Court of Antipolo, Rizal, Branch 71 dated August 26, 1997.[1]
The antecedent facts are as follows:
Petitioners Fidel M. Baares II, Lilia C. Valeriano, Edgar M. Baares, Emilia Gatchialian and
Fidel Besarino were the accused in sixteen criminal cases for estafa [2] filed by the private
respondents. The cases were assigned to the Municipal Trial Court of Antipolo, Rizal, Branch
II. Ncm
After the petitioners were arraigned and entered their plea of not guilty, [3] they filed a
Motion to Dismiss the aforementioned cases on the ground that the filing of the same was
premature, in view of the failure of the parties to undergo conciliation proceedings before
the Lupong Tagapamayapa of Barangay Dalig, Antipolo, Rizal.[4] Petitioners averred that
since they lived in the same barangay as private respondents, and the amount involved in
each of the cases did not exceed Two Hundred Pesos (P200.00), the said cases were
required under Section 412 in relation to Section 408 of the Local Government Code of
1991[5] and Section 18 of the 1991 Revised Rule on Summary Procedure.[6] to be referred to
the Lupong Tagapamayapa or Pangkat ng Tagapagkasundo of the barangay concerned for
conciliation proceedings before being filed in court.[7]
The municipal trial court issued an Order, dated July 17, 1995[8] denying petitioners Motion
to Dismiss on the ground that they failed to seasonably invoke the non-referral of the cases
to the Lupong Tagapamayapa or Pangkat ng Tagapagkasundo. It added that such failure to
invoke non-referral of the case to the Lupon amounted to a waiver by petitioners of the
right to use the said ground as basis for dismissing the cases. [9]
Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration of the aforementioned Order, claiming that
nowhere in the Revised Rules of Court is it stated that the ground of prematurity shall be
deemed waived if not raised seasonably in a motion to dismiss.[10]
On November 13, 1995, the municipal trial court issued an Order dismissing the sixteen
criminal cases against petitioners without prejudice, pursuant to Section 18 of the 1991
Revised Rule on Summary Procedure.[11] Scncm
More than two months later, on February 26, 1996, private respondents through counsel,
filed a Motion to Revive the abovementioned criminal cases against petitioners, stating that
the requirement of referral to the Lupon for conciliation had already been complied
with.[12] Attached to the motion was a Certification dated February 13, 1996 from
the Lupong Tagapamayapa of Barangay Dalig, Antipolo, Rizal[13] stating that the parties
appeared before said body regarding the charges of estafa filed by private respondents
against petitioners but they failed to reach an amicable settlement with respect thereto.
Petitioners filed a Comment and Opposition to Motion to Revive claiming that the Order of
the municipal trial court, dated November 13, 1995 dismissing the cases had long become
final and executory; hence, private respondents should have re-filed the cases instead of
filing a motion to revive.[14]
On March 18, 1996, the municipal trial court issued an Order[15] granting private
respondents Motion to Revive. Petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration[16] of the
aforementioned Order which was denied by the municipal trial court.[17]
Petitioners thereafter filed with the Regional Trial Court of Antipolo, Rizal, a petition
for certiorari, injunction and prohibition assailing the Order dated March 18, 1996 of the
municipal trial court. They claimed that the said Order dated November 13, 1995 dismissing
the criminal cases against them had long become final and executory considering that the
prosecution did not file any motion for reconsideration of said Order.[18] In response
thereto, private respondents filed their Comment,[19]arguing that the motion to revive the
said cases was in accordance with law, particularly Section 18 of the Revised Rule on
Summary Procedure.[20]
After the parties submitted additional pleadings to support their respective
contentions,[21] the Regional Trial Court rendered the assailed Decision denying the petition
for certiorari, injunction and prohibition, stating as follows:
Evaluating the allegations contained in the petition and respondents
comment thereto, the Court regrets that it cannot agree with the
petitioner(sic). As shown by the records the 16 criminal cases were
dismissed without prejudice at the instance of the petitioners for failure
of the private respondent to comply with the mandatory requirement
of PD 1508. Since the dismissal of said cases was without prejudice, the
Court honestly believes that the questioned order has not attained
finality at all.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is hereby DENIED for
lack of merit.Sdaamiso
5
 SO ORDERED.[22]
The Regional Trial Court, likewise, denied petitioners Motion for Reconsideration [23] of the
aforementioned Decision for lack of merit.[24]
Hence, this Petition.
Petitioners raise the following questions of law:
1. Whether or not an order dismissing a case or action without
prejudice may attain finality if not appealed within the reglementary
period, as in the present case;
2. Whether or not the action or case that had been dismissed without
prejudice may be revived by motion after the order of dismissal had
become final and executory; and
3. Whether or not the court that had originally acquired jurisdiction of
the case that was dismissed without prejudice still has jurisdiction to
act on the motion to revive after the order of dismissal has become final
and executory.[25]
Petitioners contend that an order dismissing a case or action without prejudice may attain
finality if not appealed within the reglementary period. Hence, if no motion to revive the
case is filed within the reglementary fifteen-day period within which to appeal or to file a
motion for reconsideration of the courts order, the order of dismissal becomes final and
the case may only be revived by the filing of a new complaint or information.[26] Petitioners
further argue that after the order of dismissal of a case attains finality, the court which
issued the same loses jurisdiction thereon and, thus, does not have the authority to act on
any motion of the parties with respect to said case.[27]
On the other hand, private respondents submit that cases covered by the 1991 Revised Rule
on Summary Procedure such as the criminal cases against petitioners are not covered by
the rule regarding finality of decisions and orders under the Revised Rules of Court. They
insist that cases dismissed without prejudice for non-compliance with the requirement of
conciliation before the Lupong Tagapamayapa or Pangkat ng Tagapagkasundo of the
barangay concerned may be revived summarily by the filing of a motion to revive regardless
of the number of days which has lapsed after the dismissal of the case.[28]
Petitioners contentions are meritorious. Sdaad
A "final order" issued by a court has been defined as one which disposes of the subject
matter in its entirety or terminates a particular proceeding or action, leaving nothing else
to be done but to enforce by execution what has been determined by the court. [29] As
distinguished therefrom, an "interlocutory order" is one which does not dispose of a case
completely, but leaves something more to be adjudicated upon.[30]
This Court has previously held that an order dismissing a case without prejudice is a final
order[31] if no motion for reconsideration or appeal therefrom is timely filed.
In Olympia International vs. Court of Appeals,[32] we stated thus:
The dismissal without prejudice of a complaint does not however mean
that said dismissal order was any less final. Such order of dismissal is
complete in all details, and though without prejudice, nonetheless
finally disposed of the matter. It was not merely an interlocutory order
but a final disposition of the complaint.
The law grants an aggrieved party a period of fifteen (15) days from his receipt of the courts
decision or order disposing of the action or proceeding to appeal or move to reconsider the
same.[33]
After the lapse of the fifteen-day period, an order becomes final and executory and is
beyond the power or jurisdiction of the court which rendered it to further amend or
revoke.[34] A final judgment or order cannot be modified in any respect, even if the
modification sought is for the purpose of correcting an erroneous conclusion by the court
which rendered the same.[35]
After the order of dismissal of a case without prejudice has become final, and therefore
becomes outside the courts power to amend and modify, a party wishes to reinstate the
case has no other remedy but to file a new complaint.
This was explained in Ortigas & Company Limited Partnership vs. Velasco,[36] where we
ruled thus:Scsdaad
The dismissal of the case, and the lapse of the reglementary period to
reconsider or set aside the dismissal, effectively operated to remove
the case from the Courts docket. Even assuming the dismissal to be
without prejudice, the case could no longer be reinstated or "revived"
by mere motion in the original docketed action, but only by the filing
of another complaint accompanied, of course, by the payment of the
corresponding filing fees prescribed by law.
xxx
[S]ince theoretically every final disposition of an action does not attain
finality until after fifteen (15) days therefrom, and consequently within
that time the action still remains within the control of the Court, the
plaintiff may move and set aside his notice of dismissal and revive his
6
 action before that period lapses. But after dismissal has become final
after the lapse of the fifteen-day reglementary period, the only way
by which the action may be resuscitated or "revived" is by the
institution of a subsequent action through the filing of another
complaint and the payment of fees prescribed by law. This is so
because upon attainment of finality of the dismissal through the lapse
of said reglementary period, the Court loses jurisdiction and control
over it and can no longer make a disposition in respect thereof
inconsistent with such dismissal.[37](Emphasis supplied.)
Contrary to private respondents claim, the foregoing rule applies not only to civil cases but
to criminal cases as well. In Jaca vs. Blanco,[38] the Court defined a provisional dismissal of
a criminal case as a dismissal without prejudice to the reinstatement thereof before the
order of dismissal becomes final or to the subsequent filing of a new information for the
offense."[39] Supremax
Thus, the Regional Trial Court erred when it denied the petition for certiorari, injunction
and prohibition and ruled that the order of the municipal trial court, dated November 13,
1995 dismissing without prejudice the criminal cases against petitioners had not attained
finality and hence, could be reinstated by the mere filing of a motion to revive.
Equally erroneous is private respondents contention that the rules regarding finality of
judgments under the Revised Rules of Court[40] do not apply to cases covered by the 1991
Revised Rule on Summary Procedure. Private respondents claim that Section 18 of the 1991
Revised Rule on Summary Procedure allows the revival of cases which were dismissed for
failure to submit the same to conciliation at the barangay level, as required under Section
412 in relation to Section 408 of the Local Government Code. The said provision states:
Referral to Lupon. Cases requiring referral to the Lupon for conciliation
under the provisions of Presidential Decree No. 1508[41] where there is
no showing of compliance with such requirement, shall be dismissed
without prejudice, and may be revived only after such requirement
shall have been complied with. This provision shall not apply to criminal
cases where the accused was arrested without a warrant.[42]
There is nothing in the aforecited provision which supports private respondents view.
Section 18 merely states that when a case covered by the 1991 Revised Rule on Summary
Procedure is dismissed without prejudice for non-referral of the issues to the Lupon, the
same may be revived only after the dispute subject of the dismissed case is submitted to
barangay conciliation as required under the Local Government Code. There is no
declaration to the effect that said case may be revived by mere motion even after the
fifteen-day period within which to appeal or to file a motion for reconsideration has lapsed.
Moreover, the 1991 Revised Rule on Summary Procedure expressly provides that the Rules
of Court applies suppletorily to cases covered by the former:
Sec. 22. Applicability of the regular rules. The regular procedure
prescribed in the Rules of Court shall apply to the special cases herein
provided for in a suppletory capacity insofar as they are not inconsistent
therewith.[43]
A careful examination of Section 18 in relation to Section 22 of the 1991 Revised Rule of
Summary Procedure and Rule 40, Section 2 in relation to Rule 13, Sections 9 and 10,[44] and
Rule 36, Section 2[45]of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, leads to no other
conclusion than that the rules regarding finality of judgments also apply to cases covered
by the rules on summary procedure. Nothing in Section 18 of the 1991 Revised Rule on
Summary Procedure conflicts with the prevailing rule that a judgment or order which is not
appealed or made subject of a motion for reconsideration within the prescribed fifteen-day
period attains finality.[46] Hence, the principle expressed in the maxim interpretare et
concordare legibus est optimus interpretandi, or that every statute must be so construed
and harmonized with other statutes as to form a uniform system of
jurisprudence [47] applies in interpreting both sets of Rules.
The rationale behind the doctrine of finality of judgments and orders, likewise, supports our
conclusion that said doctrine applies to cases covered by the 1991 Revised Rule on
Summary Procedure:
The doctrine of finality of judgments is grounded on fundamental considerations of public
policy and sound practice that at the risk of occasional error, the judgments of the courts
must become final at some definite date set by law.[48] Misjuris
It is but logical to infer that the foregoing principle also applies to cases subject to summary
procedure especially since the objective of the Rule governing the same is precisely to settle
these cases expeditiously.[49] To construe Section 18 thereof as allowing the revival of
dismissed cases by mere motion even after the lapse of the period for appealing the same
would prevent the courts from settling justiciable controversies with finality,[50] thereby
undermining the stability of our judicial system.
The Court also finds it necessary to correct the mistaken impression of petitioners and the
municipal trial court that the non-referral of a case for barangay conciliation as required
under the Local Government Code of 1991[51] may be raised in a motion to dismiss even
after the accused has been arraigned.
It is well-settled that the non-referral of a case for barangay conciliation when so required
under the law[52] is not jurisdictional in nature[53] and may therefore be deemed waived if
not raised seasonably in a motion to dismiss.[54] The Court notes that although petitioners
could have invoked the ground of prematurity of the causes of action against them due to
the failure to submit the dispute to Lupon prior to the filing of the cases as soon as they
7
received the complaints against them, petitioners raised the said ground only after their
arraignment.
However, while the trial court committed an error in dismissing the criminal cases against
petitioners on the ground that the same were not referred to the Lupon prior to the filing
thereof in court although said ground was raised by them belatedly, the said order may no
longer be revoked at present considering that the same had long become final and
executory, and as earlier stated, may no longer be annulled [55]by the Municipal Trial Court,
nor by the Regional Trial Court or this Court.[56] Scjuris
WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby GRANTED. The Decision of the Regional Trial Court of
Antipolo, Rizal, Branch II dated August 26, 1997 and its Order dated January 29, 1998 in SCA
Case No. 96-4092 are hereby SET ASIDE and Criminal Cases Nos. 94-0829, 94-0830, 94-0831,
94-0832, 94-0833, 94-0836, 94-0838, 94-0839, 94-0841, 94-0843, 94-0847, 94-0848, 94-
0850, 94-0854 and 94-0058 of the Municipal Trial Court of Antipolo are ordered DISMISSED,
without prejudice, pursuant to Sec. 18 of the 1991 Revised Rule on Summary Procedure.
SO ORDERED. KAPUNAN
B. Arbitration in Special Laws
1. Without the law, can arbitration be resorted to?
2. RA 876, The Arbitration Law. When Applicable?
3. NCC Art. 2042-2046
CHAPTER 2
ARBITRATIONS
Art. 2042. The same persons who may enter into a compromise may submit their
controversies to one or more arbitrators for decision. (1820a)
Art. 2043. The provisions of the preceding Chapter upon compromises shall also be
applicable to arbitrations. (1821a)
Art. 2044. Any stipulation that the arbitrators' award or decision shall be final, is valid,
without prejudice to Articles 2038, 2039, and 2040. (n)
Art. 2045. Any clause giving one of the parties power to choose more arbitrators than the
other is void and of no effect. (n)
Art. 2046. The appointment of arbitrators and the procedure for arbitration shall be
governed by the provisions of such rules of court as the Supreme Court shall promulgate.
(n)
4. Promotion of arbitration in other laws. Look at the applicable provision only.
a. Labor Code (1974) Art. 260-262
Title VII-A
GRIEVANCE MACHINERY
AND VOLUNTARY ARBITRATION
Article. 260. Grievance machinery and voluntary arbitration. - The parties to a Collective
Bargaining Agreement shall include therein provisions that will ensure the mutual
observance of its terms and conditions. They shall establish a machinery for the adjustment
and resolution of grievances arising from the interpretation or implementation of their
Collective Bargaining Agreement and those arising from the interpretation or enforcement
of company personnel policies.
All grievances submitted to the grievance machinery which are not settled within seven (7)
calendar days from the date of its submission shall automatically be referred to voluntary
arbitration prescribed in the Collective Bargaining Agreement.
For this purpose, parties to a Collective Bargaining Agreement shall name and designate in
advance a Voluntary Arbitrator or panel of Voluntary Arbitrators, or include in the
agreement a procedure for the selection of such Voluntary Arbitrator or panel of Voluntary
Arbitrators, preferably from the listing of qualified Voluntary Arbitrators duly accredited by
the Board. In case the parties fail to select a Voluntary Arbitrator or panel of Voluntary
Arbitrators, the Board shall designate the Voluntary Arbitrator or panel of Voluntary
Arbitrators, as may be necessary, pursuant to the selection procedure agreed upon in the
Collective Bargaining Agreement, which shall act with the same force and effect as if the
Arbitrator or panel of Arbitrators has been selected by the parties as described above.
Article. 261. Jurisdiction of Voluntary Arbitrators or panel of Voluntary Arbitrators. - The
Voluntary Arbitrator or panel of Voluntary Arbitrators shall have original and exclusive
jurisdiction to hear and decide all unresolved grievances arising from the interpretation or
implementation of the Collective Bargaining Agreement and those arising from the
interpretation or enforcement of company personnel policies referred to in the
immediately preceding article. Accordingly, violations of a Collective Bargaining Agreement,
except those which are gross in character, shall no longer be treated as unfair labor practice
and shall be resolved as grievances under the Collective Bargaining Agreement. For
purposes of this article, gross violations of Collective Bargaining Agreement shall mean
flagrant and/or malicious refusal to comply with the economic provisions of such
agreement.
The Commission, its Regional Offices and the Regional Directors of the Department
of Labor and Employment shall not entertain disputes, grievances or matters under the
exclusive and original jurisdiction of the Voluntary Arbitrator or panel of Voluntary
Arbitrators and shall immediately dispose and refer the same to the Grievance Machinery
or Voluntary Arbitration provided in the Collective Bargaining Agreement.
Article. 262. Jurisdiction over other labor disputes. - The Voluntary Arbitrator or panel of
Voluntary Arbitrators, upon agreement of the parties, shall also hear and decide all
otherlabor disputes including unfair labor practices and bargaining deadlocks.
Article. 262-A. Procedures. - The Voluntary Arbitrator or panel of Voluntary Arbitrators shall
have the power to hold hearings, receive evidences and take whatever action is necessary
to resolve the issue or issues subject of the dispute, including efforts to effect a voluntary
settlement between parties.
8
All parties to the dispute shall be entitled to attend the arbitration proceedings. The
attendance of any third party or the exclusion of any witness from the proceedings shall be
determined by the Voluntary Arbitrator or panel of Voluntary Arbitrators. Hearing may be
adjourned for cause or upon agreement by the parties.
Unless the parties agree otherwise, it shall be mandatory for the Voluntary Arbitrator or
panel of Voluntary Arbitrators to render an award or decision within twenty (20) calendar
days from the date of submission of the dispute to voluntary arbitration.
The award or decision of the Voluntary Arbitrator or panel of Voluntary Arbitrators shall
contain the facts and the law on which it is based. It shall be final and executory after ten
(10) calendar days from receipt of the copy of the award or decision by the parties.
Upon motion of any interested party, the Voluntary Arbitrator or panel of Voluntary
Arbitrators or the Labor Arbiter in the region where the movant resides, in case of the
absence or incapacity of the Voluntary Arbitrator or panel of Voluntary Arbitrators, for any
reason, may issue a writ of execution requiring either the sheriff of the Commission or
regular courts or any public official whom the parties may designate in the submission
agreement to execute the final decision, order or award.
Article. 262-B. Cost of voluntary arbitration and Voluntary Arbitrator’s fee. - The parties
to a Collective Bargaining Agreement shall provide therein a proportionate sharing scheme
on the cost of voluntary arbitration including the Voluntary Arbitrator’s fee. The fixing
of fee of Voluntary Arbitrators, whether shouldered wholly by the parties or subsidized by
the Special Voluntary Arbitration Fund, shall take into account the following factors:
(a) Nature of the case;
(b) Time consumed in hearing the case;
(c) Professional standing of the Voluntary Arbitrator;
(d) Capacity to pay of the parties; and
(e) Fees provided for in the Revised Rules of Court.
b. PD 612 (1974) Sec. 416
Section 416. The Commissioner shall have the power to adjudicate claims and complaints
involving any loss, damage or liability for which in insurer may be answerable under any
kind of policy or contract of insurance, or for which such insurer may be liable under a
contract of suretyship, or for which a reinsurer may be sued under any contract of
reinsurance it may have entered into; or for which a mutual benefit association may be held
liable under the membership certificates it has issued to its members, where the amount
of any such loss, damage or liability, excluding interest, cost and attorney's fees, being
claimed or sued upon any kind of insurance, bond, reinsurance contract, or membership
certificate does not exceed in any single claim one hundred thousand pesos.
The insurer or surety may, in the same action file a counterclaim against the insured or the
obligee.
The insurer or surety may also file a cross-claim against a party for any claim arising out of
the transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of the original action or of a
counterclaim therein.
With leave of the Commissioner, an insurer or surety may file a third-party complaint
against its reinsurers for indemnification, contribution, subrogation or any other relief, in
respect of the transaction that is the subject matter of the original action filed with the
Commissioner.
The party filing an action pursuant to the provisions of this section thereby submits his
person to the jurisdiction of the Commissioner. The Commissioner shall acquire jurisdiction
over the person of the impleaded party or parties in accordance with and pursuant to the
provisions of the Rules of Court.
The authority to adjudicate granted to the Commissioner under this section shall be
concurrent with that of the civil courts, but the filing of a complaint with the Commissioner
shall preclude the civil courts from taking cognizance of a suit involving the same subject
matter.
Any decision, order or ruling rendered by the Commissioner after a hearing shall have the
force and effect of a judgment. Any party may appeal from a final order, ruling or decision
of the Commissioner by filing with the Commissioner within thirty days from receipt of copy
of such order, ruling or decision a notice of appeal and with the Supreme Court twelve
printed or mimeographed copies of a petition for certiorari or review of such order, ruling
or decision, as the case may be. A copy of the petition shall be served upon the
Commissioner and upon the adverse party, and proof of service thereof attached to the
original of the petition.
As soon as a decision, order or ruling has become final and executory, the Commissioner
shall motu propio or on motion of the interested party, issue a writ of execution required
the sheriff or the proper officer to whom it is directed to execute said decision, order or
award, pursuant to Rule thirty-nine of the Rules of Court.
For the purpose of any proceeding under this section, the Commissioner, or any officer
thereof designated by him, empowered to administer oaths and affirmation, subpoena
witnesses, compel their attendance, take evidence, and require the production of any
books, papers, documents, or contracts or other records which are relevant or material to
the inquiry. In case of contumacy by, or refusal to obey a subpoena issued to any person,
the Commissioner may invoke the aid of any court of first instance within the jurisdiction of
which such proceeding is carried on, where such person resides or carries on his own
business, in requiring the attendance and testimony of witnesses and the production of
books, papers, documents, contracts or other records. And such court may issue an order
requiring such person to appear before the Commissioner, or officer designated by the
Commissioner, there to produce records, if so ordered or to give testimony touching the
matter in question. Any failure to obey such order of the court may be published by such
court as a contempt thereof.
9
A full and complete record shall be kept of all proceedings had before the commissioner, or a. The referral tends to oust a court of its jurisdiction;
the officers thereof designated by him, and all testimony shall be taken down and
transcribed by a stenographer appointed by the Commissioner. b. The court is in a better position to resolve the dispute subject of arbitration;

A transcribed copy of the evidence and proceeding, or any specific part thereof, of any c. The referral would result in multiplicity of suits;
hearing taken by a stenographer appointed by the Commissioner, being certified by such
stenographer to be a true and correct transcript of the testimony on this hearing of a
d. The arbitration proceeding has not commenced;
particular witness, or of a specific proof thereof, carefully compared by him from his original
notes, and to be a correct statement of evidence and proceeding had in such hearing so
purporting to be taken and subscribed, may be received as evidence by the Commissioner e. The place of arbitration is in a foreign country;
and by any court with the same effect as if such stenographer were present and testified to
the facts so certified. (As amended by Presidential Decree No. 1455) f. One or more of the issues are legal and one or more of the arbitrators are not
lawyers;
c. RA 7394 (1992)
d. RA 7842 (1995) g. One or more of the arbitrators are not Philippine nationals; or
e. RA 8293 (1998)
f. RA 10173 (2012)
C. RA 9285 or the ADR Act of 2004 and Special ADR Rules or AM 07-11-08-SC h. One or more of the arbitrators are alleged not to possess the required
1. Various Forms of ADR RA 9285 Sec. 3 (d, q, n, u) qualification under the arbitration agreement or law.

(d) "Arbitration" means a voluntary dispute resolution process in which one or more
arbitrators, appointed in accordance with the agreement of the parties, or rules
promulgated pursuant to this Act, resolve a dispute by rendering an award; RULE 4: REFERRAL TO ADR

(q) "Mediation" means a voluntary process in which a mediator, selected by the disputing
parties, facilitates communication and negotiation, and assist the parties in reaching a
voluntary agreement regarding a dispute.
(n) "Early Neutral Evaluation" means an ADR process wherein parties and their lawyers are
brought together early in a pre-trial phase to present summaries of their cases and receive
a nonbinding assessment by an experienced, neutral person, with expertise in the subject
in the substance of the dispute;
Rule 4.1. Who makes the request. - A party to a pending action filed in violation of the
arbitration agreement, whether contained in an arbitration clause or in a submission
agreement, may request the court to refer the parties to arbitration in accordance with
such agreement.
Rule 4.7. Multiple actions and parties. - The court shall not decline to refer some or all of
the parties to arbitration for any of the following reasons:

(u) "Mini-Trial" means a structured dispute resolution method in which the merits of a case
are argued before a panel comprising senior decision makers with or without the presence
of a neutral third person after which the parties seek a negotiated settlement;
1. Referral to Arbitration. Special ADR Rules, Rule 2.2 (A), Rule 4.1, 4.7
Rule 2.2. Policy on arbitration.- (A) Where the parties have agreed to submit their dispute
to arbitration, courts shall refer the parties to arbitration pursuant to Republic Act No. 9285
bearing in mind that such arbitration agreement is the law between the parties and that
they are expected to abide by it in good faith. Further, the courts shall not refuse to refer
parties to arbitration for reasons including, but not limited to, the following:
a. Not all of the disputes subject of the civil action may be referred to arbitration;
b. Not all of the parties to the civil action are bound by the arbitration agreement
and referral to arbitration would result in multiplicity of suits;
c. The issues raised in the civil action could be speedily and efficiently resolved in
its entirety by the court rather than in arbitration;
d. Referral to arbitration does not appear to be the most prudent action; or
e. The stay of the action would prejudice the rights of the parties to the civil action
who are not bound by the arbitration agreement.

10
The court may, however, issue an order directing the inclusion in arbitration of those parties
who are not bound by the arbitration agreement but who agree to such inclusion provided
those originally bound by it do not object to their inclusion.
2. Referral to Mediation. Special ADR Rules, Rule 2.5
Rule 2.5. Policy on mediation. - The Special ADR Rules do not apply to Court-Annexed
Mediation, which shall be governed by issuances of the Supreme Court.
Where the parties have agreed to submit their dispute to mediation, a court before which
that dispute was brought shall suspend the proceedings and direct the parties to submit
their dispute to private mediation. If the parties subsequently agree, however, they may
opt to have their dispute settled through Court-Annexed Mediation.
3. Judicial Review
a. Arbitration and Mediation. Special ADR Rules, Rule 2.1, 2.2 (B), 2.4
Rule 2.1. General policies. - It is the policy of the State to actively promote the use of various
modes of ADR and to respect party autonomy or the freedom of the parties to make their
own arrangements in the resolution of disputes with the greatest cooperation of and the
least intervention from the courts. To this end, the objectives of the Special ADR Rules are
to encourage and promote the use of ADR, particularly arbitration and mediation, as an
important means to achieve speedy and efficient resolution of disputes, impartial justice,
curb a litigious culture and to de-clog court dockets.
The court shall exercise the power of judicial review as provided by these Special ADR Rules.
Courts shall intervene only in the cases allowed by law or these Special ADR Rules.
Rule 2.2 (B) (B) Where court intervention is allowed under ADR Laws or the Special ADR
Rules, courts shall not refuse to grant relief, as provided herein, for any of the following
reasons:
a. Prior to the constitution of the arbitral tribunal, the court finds that the
principal action is the subject of an arbitration agreement; or
b. The principal action is already pending before an arbitral tribunal.
The Special ADR Rules recognize the principle of competence-competence, which means
that the arbitral tribunal may initially rule on its own jurisdiction, including any objections
with respect to the existence or validity of the arbitration agreement or any condition
precedent to the filing of a request for arbitration.
The Special ADR Rules recognize the principle of separability of the arbitration clause, which
means that said clause shall be treated as an agreement independent of the other terms of
the contract of which it forms part. A decision that the contract is null and void shall not
entail ipso jure the invalidity of the arbitration clause.
Rule 2.4. Policy implementing competence-competence principle. - The arbitral tribunal
shall be accorded the first opportunity or competence to rule on the issue of whether or
not it has the competence or jurisdiction to decide a dispute submitted to it for decision,
including any objection with respect to the existence or validity of the arbitration
agreement. When a court is asked to rule upon issue/s affecting the competence or
jurisdiction of an arbitral tribunal in a dispute brought before it, either before or after the
arbitral tribunal is constituted, the court must exercise judicial restraint and defer to the
competence or jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal by allowing the arbitral tribunal the first
opportunity to rule upon such issues.
Where the court is asked to make a determination of whether the arbitration agreement is
null and void, inoperative or incapable of being performed, under this policy of judicial
restraint, the court must make no more than a prima facie determination of that issue.
Unless the court, pursuant to such prima facie determination, concludes that the arbitration
agreement is null and void, inoperative or incapable of being performed, the court must
suspend the action before it and refer the parties to arbitration pursuant to the arbitration
agreement.
b. No Appeal or Certiorari. Special ADR Rules, Rule 19.7
B. GENERAL PROVISIONS ON APPEAL AND CERTIORARI
Rule 19.7. No appeal or certiorari on the merits of an arbitral award. - An agreement to
refer a dispute to arbitration shall mean that the arbitral award shall be final and binding.
Consequently, a party to an arbitration is precluded from filing an appeal or a petition for
certiorari questioning the merits of an arbitral award.
4. Competence-Competence. Special ADR Rules, Rule 2.2 (B)
D. Mediation in the Courts
1. Court-Annexed Mediation (CAM)
2. Judicial Dispute Resolution (JDR)
a. When not applicable?
b. See Revised Guidelines issued by PHILJA p. 3-27
11