Barangay Mediation & the Certificate to File Action (CFTA) in the Philippines

A comprehensive legal-practice guide to Katarungang Pambarangay

1. Historical & statutory framework

Instrument	Key provisions on barangay dispute settlement
1968 Constitution, Art. XV	Endorsed creation of a system of community courts/tribunals.
P.D. 1508 (11 June 1978)	First codified Katarungang Pambarangay (KP) Law; introduced the Lupon Tagapamayapa and the CFTA.
Republic Act 7160, Book III, Title I, Chapter VII (Local Government Code of 1991)	Re-enacted and refined KP, repealing P.D. 1508 but preserving its concepts.
Department of Justice & DILG Joint Circulars	Prescribed forms, including the CFTA; clarified exclusions and time limits.
AM No. 07-09-07-SC & AM No. 19-10-20-SC (Revised KP Rules)	Streamlined court dismissal procedure for cases filed sans CFTA; updated effectivity of settlements.

(All subsequent references are to RA 7160 unless otherwise indicated.)

2. Purpose & philosophy

Decongest courts and prosecutors’ offices by obliging parties with minor or local disputes to attempt settlement in their own community.
Promote social harmony through dialogue facilitated by respected neighbors.
Empower barangays to resolve conflicts, reinforcing autonomy under Art. X of the 1987 Constitution.

3. The Lupon Tagapamayapa

Element	Detail
Chair	Punong Barangay (PB).
Members	10–20 residents of legal age, appointed by the PB every 3 years with Sangguniang Barangay concurrence.
Secretary	Usually the Barangay Secretary; keeps minutes and issues CFTAs.
Pangkat ng Tagapagkasundo (Conciliation Panel)	3 Lupon members chosen per case by the parties (or by lot) if mediation fails.

4. Coverage of mandatory barangay mediation/conciliation

Civil disputes where the parties reside in the same city/municipality (e.g., money claims, contracts, easement controversies).
Criminal complaints punishable by ≤1 year imprisonment or ≤₱5,000 fine.
Quasi-offenses (negligence) within the above penal ceiling.
Real-property disputes if the property is in the same city/municipality.

5. Exclusions & exemptions

NO barangay proceedings are required (or even allowed) when:

A party is the government, a GOCC, or a public officer acting in official capacity.
The offense is punishable by >1 year or >₱5,000, or one party is a prisoner.
Labor, agrarian, PCSO/GSIS/SSS matters, or cases already under administrative agencies with exclusive jurisdiction.
Petitions for habeas corpus, probate, marriage cases, annulment, legal separation, adoption, guardianship, and habeas data/amparo.
Where urgent legal action is necessary (e.g., to prevent immediate violence or irreparable injury, or to secure evidence).
Parties reside in different municipalities unless they agree in writing to submit to one barangay.

6. Step-by-step procedure

Stage	Who handles	Time limit	Possible outcomes
Filing of complaint (verbal or written)	Complainant → PB	–	Summons issued within the same or next working day.
Mediation by PB	Punong Barangay	15 days from first confrontation	(a) Amicable Settlement (Kasunduan); (b) Non-settlement; (c) Non-appearance.
Constitution of Pangkat	PB, parties choose 3 mediators	Within 15 days of mediation’s failure	Written oath of impartiality by Pangkat.
Pangkat conciliation	Pangkat Chair	15 days + one 15-day extension	(a) Settlement; (b) Agreement to arbitrate; (c) Impasse; (d) Non-appearance.
Arbitration (optional)	PB or Pangkat	Award within 10 days from being signed	Award has force of a court judgment after 10 days if unrepudiated.

7. Effects of settlement & repudiation

A signed settlement (Kasunduan) attested by the PB or Pangkat has the force and effect of a final judgment of an MTC after 10 days.
Repudiation—on grounds of fraud, violence, or mistake—must be in writing within those 10 days; the dispute proceeds as though no settlement occurred.
Execution of settlements/awards is through the Lupon; failing that, the MTC or MCTC may issue a writ of execution (RA 7160, § 417).

8. The Certificate to File Action (CFTA)

Feature	Detail
Who issues?	Lupon Secretary, countersigned by the PB (or by Pangkat Chair if PB is disqualified).
When issued?	1. Failure of mediation and conciliation; 2. Valid repudiation; 3. Refusal of one party to appear on the second summons; 4. Refusal to sign an arbitration agreement or to abide by an award.
Form	DOJ/Katarungang Pambarangay Form No. KP-7 (civil) or KP-8 (criminal).
Validity	– Criminal complaints: file with the Office of the Prosecutor within 10 days. – Civil actions: file in court within 60 days.
Legal effect	A pleading filed without a proper CFTA (or covered by an exclusion) is ground for dismissal without prejudice (Rule 16, Sec. 1[j]; Admin. Circular 14-93).
Certification against forum shopping	Still required apart from the CFTA.

Practical tip: Attach the original CFTA to the information or complaint; courts have dismissed suits where only photocopies were attached.

9. Sanctions for non-appearance

First non-appearance: case proceeds; PB/Pangkat notes absence.
Second non-appearance by complainant → dismissal of the barangay complaint and bar to re-file the same claim in court (prescription continues to run).
Second non-appearance by respondent → CFTA is issued; respondent may face contempt in court plus award of attorney’s fees to the present party.

Some barangays impose administrative fines under § 418, LGC.

10. Interruption of prescription

Filing the barangay complaint suspends prescriptive or reglementary periods:

Civil actions: suspension lasts up to 60 days from issuance of the CFTA or until settlement/repudiation, whichever comes first (Art. 253, Civil Code as applied).
Criminal actions: prescriptive period tolled during actual barangay proceedings and for 60 days thereafter; resumes once CFTA lapses or is issued.

11. Notable jurisprudence

Case	G.R. No.	Ratio
Salvador v. CA	111715 (23 Jan 1998)	Filing sans CFTA is curable before the trial court’s dismissal order.
Gomez v. Liwag	130101 (21 Sept 1999)	No CFTA needed where parties reside in different cities.
Spouses Abalos v. CA	103756 (20 Nov 1996)	A valid Kasunduan has the same effect as a judgment on compromise and is immediately executory if not repudiated.
People v. Dizon	66830-31 (12 March 1990)	Barangay arbitration award, if unrepudiated, is enforceable; violation may give rise to contempt.
Bustos v. Lupisan	138680 (22 Mar 2001)	Lack of CFTA is jurisdictional; complaint properly dismissed.

(Citations here are illustrative; verify current status before citing in pleadings.)

12. Relationship with alternative dispute-resolution statutes

ADR Act of 2004 (RA 9285) expressly excludes KP proceedings from institutional ADR but upholds the finality of barangay settlements.
A KP settlement may be deposited with the RTC and enforced as an ADR-based compromise under Rule 12.

13. Practical checklist for lawyers & barangay officials

Screen for coverage: Are the parties & cause within KP jurisdiction?
Observe time frames strictly; keep a running diary of dates.
Use the proper forms (KP-5 to KP-10); unsigned or altered forms invite dismissal.
Explain arbitration early—many parties prefer a binding award to endless conciliation.
Draft clear settlements: state obligations, timelines, and a liquidated-damages clause.
Advise clients: repudiation must be in writing within 10 days—no oral withdrawals.
Secure original CFTA; photocopies do not satisfy court requirements.
File within validity period or the complainant must restart barangay proceedings.

14. Common pitfalls

Attempting barangay conciliation for an excluded case (e.g., ejectment with different municipalities)—wastes prescriptive time.
Relying on verbal settlements; only written & attested Kasunduan enjoy the status of final judgment.
Assuming the CFTA is perpetual—it expires after 60 days (civil) or 10 days (criminal).
Filing directly in court “to beat prescription” without CFTA; the case will be dismissed and prescription will likely bar re-filing.

15. Conclusion

Barangay mediation under the Katarungang Pambarangay system is more than an administrative pre-condition; it is a mini-judicial framework designed to foster community harmony, unclog dockets, and deliver swift grassroots justice. Mastery of its rules—particularly the strategic use and timely procurement of the Certificate to File Action—is indispensable for Philippine practitioners and barangay officials alike.

Disclaimer: This article is for educational purposes and does not constitute legal advice. Statutes, rules, and jurisprudence may change; always consult the latest issuances or qualified counsel.