Remedies when there is failure to

comply with ‘barangay’ settlement

Republic Act (RA) 7610 or the Local Government Code of 1991 provides a

channel for parties to settle their disputes without having to go to court. It is

clearly provided under Section 408 of the Local Government Code (LGC) that

the lupon (council) of each barangay (village) has authority to bring together

parties actually residing in the same city or municipality for amicable

settlement of all disputes, save those exceptions mentioned therein. An

amicable settlement appropriately reached before the barangay has a binding

effect and it may thereafter be enforced. As stated under the LGC:

“SECTION 416. 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.

xxx

SECTION 417. The amicable settlement and arbitration award may be

enforced by execution by the lupon within six (6) months from the date of
settlement. After the lapse of such time, the settlement may be enforced by
action in the appropriate city or municipal court.”

Accordingly, your aunt’s co-worker has the option of enforcing the subject

settlement they reached before the barangay, but only within six (6) months

from reaching such settlement or enforce it by filing an appropriate action

before the proper court.

We wish to further emphasize that the remedies mentioned under Section 417

of the same code do not rule out the possible availment of another remedy

mentioned under our civil laws, which is to regard the amicable settlement as

rescinded and insist upon his original demand by court action. As stated under
Article 2041 of the New Civil Code:

“If one of the parties fails or refuses to abide by the compromise, the other
party may either enforce the compromise or regard it as rescinded and insist
upon his original demand.”

Our Supreme Court explained in the case of Miguel vs. Montanez (G.R. No.
191336; January 25, 2012; ponente, Associate Justice Bienvenido Reyes):

“Thus, under Section 417 of the Local Government Code,19 such amicable
settlement or arbitration award may be enforced by execution by the Barangay
Lupon within six (6) months from the date of settlement, or by filing an action

to enforce such settlement in the appropriate city or municipal court, if beyond

the six-month period.

xxx

It must be emphasized, however, that enforcement by execution of the

amicable settlement, either under the first or the second remedy, is only

applicable if the contracting parties have not repudiated such settlement within

ten (10) days from the date thereof in accordance with Section 416 of the Local

Government Code. If the amicable settlement is repudiated by one party, either

expressly or [implicitly], the other party has two options, namely, to enforce

the compromise in accordance with the Local Government Code or Rules of

Court as the case may be, or to consider it rescinded and insist upon his original

demand. This is in accord with Article 2041 of the Civil Code, which qualifies
the broad application of Article 2037, viz:

If one of the parties fails or refuses to abide by the compromise, the other party

may either enforce the compromise or regard it as rescinded and insist upon
his original demand.

xxx
In the case at bar, the Revised Katarungang Pambarangay Law provides for a

two-tiered mode of enforcement of an amicable settlement, to wit: (a) by

execution by the Punong Barangay that is quasi-judicial and summary in nature

on mere motion of the party entitled thereto; and (b) an action in regular form,

which remedy is judicial. However, the mode of enforcement does not rule out

the right of rescission under Art. 2041 of the Civil Code. The availability of

the right of rescission is apparent from the wording of Sec. 417 itself which
provides that the amicable settlement “may” be enforced by execution by the

lupon within six (6) months from its date or by action in the appropriate city or

municipal court, if beyond that period. The use of the word “may” clearly

makes the procedure provided in the Revised Katarungang Pambarangay Law

directory or merely optional in nature.

x x x”

We hope that we were able to answer your queries. Please be reminded that

this advice is based solely on the facts you have narrated and our appreciation
of the same. Our opinion may vary when other facts are changed or elaborated.