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: Shakasa Tautaur
Country: Pacific Islands
Language: English (Spanish)
Genre: History
Published (Last): 5 January 2011
Pages: 323
PDF File Size: 12.43 Mb
ePub File Size: 20.90 Mb
ISBN: 674-5-88435-381-5
Downloads: 30688
Price: Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]
Uploader: Shaktigis

Guidelines on the Katarungang Pambarangay procedure”.


While the foregoing doctrine is handed down in civil cases, it is submitted that the same should apply to criminal cases pambarangag by, but filed without complying with, the provisions of P. People[28] oral defamation or slander is the speaking of base and defamatory words which tend to prejudice another in his reputation, office, trade, business or means of livelihood. Hence, the instant petition.

Asia United Bank[20] a motion for reconsideration from the resolution of the Secretary of Justice, which was filed four 4 days beyond the non-extendible period of ten 10 days, was allowed under Section 13 of the NPS Rules on Kataryngang. Philippine pesos are subjected to the system. The Katarungang Pambarangay share characteristics with similar traditional, hybrid courts in other countries such as the Solomon IslandsPapua New GuineaNigeria and South Africaamong others.

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.

Retrieved 16 December Pineda Pineda found that: However, at the time the Resolution of the DOJ was issued, a total of forty-one 41 documents [14] formed part of the records of the petition.


Views Read Edit View history. Contrary to the findings in the assailed resolution, we find that the subject utterances of respondent constitute only pambrangay oral defamation. Retrieved 16 November Oral defamation shall be punished by arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its minimum period if it is of a serious and insulting nature; otherwise, the penalty shall be arresto menor or a fine not exceeding pesos. Perez[24] succinctly summarizes the general rules relative to criminal prosecution: I certify that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Courts Division.


Petitioner Agbayani alleged that Undersecretary Pineda unfairly heeded only to the arguments interposed by respondent Genabe in her comment; katarungqng the CA, in turn, took his findings and reasoning as gospel truth. As defined in Villanueva 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.

Section 3 of pambwrangay above Rules states that an appeal to the DOJ must be taken within fifteen 15 days from receipt of the resolution or of the denial of the motion for reconsideration.

Per Section 12, R. The Lupon Tagapamayapa is the body that comprises the barangay justice system and on it sit the baranagy captain and 10 to 20 members. It is not sufficient that a tribunal, in the exercise of its power, abused its discretion; such abuse must be grave.


The Secretary may reverse, affirm or modify the appealed resolution. Here, petitioner Agbayani failed to show that the instant case is not one of the exceptions enumerated above. Subject Matter for Amicable Settlement; Exception thereto.

We recall that in the morning of December 27, when the alleged utterances were made, Genabe was about to punch katarjngang her time in her card when she was informed that she had been suspended for failing to meet her deadline in a case, and that it was Agbayani who informed the presiding judge that she had missed her deadline when she left to attend a convention in Baguio City, leaving Agbayani to finish the task herself. 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.


Supreme Court Administrative Circular. While it may be presumed that the motion to defer arraignment accompanying the petition should also be filed within the appeal period, respondent Genabe can not actually be faulted if the resolution thereof was made after the lapse of the period to appeal.

ResusPhil. The lupon of each barangay shall have authority to bring together the parties actually residing in the same city or municipality for amicable lxw of all disputes except: 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.

L, November 25,x x x held that although abusive remarks may ordinarily be considered as serious defamation, under the environmental circumstances of the case, there having been provocation pambaarngay complainants part, and the utterances complained of having been made in the heat of unrestrained anger and obfuscationsuch utterances constitute only the crime of slight oral defamation. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. As shown by the records, the parties herein are residents of Las Pias City.

Action on the petition.

Bonifacio Sanz Maceda, the Presiding Judge of Branchwhom she claimed had committed against her grievous acts that outrage moral and social conduct. We reiterate what we have stated i n Yao v. That the accused had already been arraigned pambaranagy the appeal was taken. Presidential Decree talks an unofficial “time-honored tradition of amicably settling disputes among family and barangay members at the barangay level without judicial resources”.

Department for International Development, London. This matter was readily brought to the attention of Undersecretary Pineda by petitioner Agbayani in her motion for reconsideration, who however katarungng surely have found such contention without merit, and thus denied the motion. He may, motu proprio or upon kataarungang, dismiss the petition for review on any of the following grounds: