Barangay Refusal to Issue a Certificate to File Action (CFA) Because of “Pending Complaints”

A comprehensive guide in the Philippine context

Why the Certificate to File Action matters

Under the Katarungang Pambarangay (KP) system (Chapter 7, Local Government Code of 1991), most disputes between individuals who reside in the same city/municipality must first undergo barangay mediation/conciliation before a case may be brought to court or a prosecutor. Proof of this prior step is the Certificate to File Action (CFA)—a short document issued by the Lupon/Pangkat that tells the court or prosecutor, “conciliation failed or could not proceed; litigation may now continue.”

Failure to secure a CFA (when required) is not a jurisdictional defect, but it is a failure to comply with a condition precedent and is a frequent ground for dismissal without prejudice or for deferral of criminal proceedings until KP is complied with.

Who issues the CFA and when

Who issues. The Lupon or Pangkat Secretary issues the CFA, typically attested by the Punong Barangay or Pangkat Chair using the KP form.

When it must be issued (any one is enough):

No settlement after KP timeframes lapse (see below).
Non-appearance of a party despite proper summons (usually two settings).
Repudiation of a signed settlement within 10 days for vices of consent.
Agreement to arbitrate was not reached, or arbitration failed/award was repudiated as allowed by KP rules.
Any other KP endpoint showing barangay conciliation cannot continue (e.g., party moved away; verified exception applies).

Standard timeframes.

Mediation by the Punong Barangay: up to 15 days from the first mediation meeting.
Conciliation by the Pangkat: up to 15 days, extendable by another 15 days upon written agreement of the parties.
These are maximums; if it is evident earlier that settlement is impossible (or the respondent repeatedly defaults), the CFA may be issued earlier.

Once any of the above grounds exists, issuing the CFA is essentially a ministerial duty—not a matter of barangay discretion.

Common barangay reasons for refusal—and what the law actually expects

1) “We can’t issue a CFA because there are other pending complaints here.”

Correct view: Each dispute is distinct. If Complaint A has already reached a KP endpoint (e.g., time lapsed, failed settlement, non-appearance), the CFA for Complaint A must be issued even if Complaint B—involving the same parties or related facts—remains pending.
The barangay may consolidate related complaints for efficiency, but consolidation does not justify withholding a CFA for any dispute that is already ripe for certification.
Practical tip: If multiple complaints cover the same cause of action, the barangay can encourage amendment/consolidation to avoid splitting claims. Still, once consolidation has failed to yield a settlement within the timeframes, a CFA must issue.

2) “We won’t issue yet because the 15/30-day window hasn’t fully run.”

Correct view: The barangay may defer issuance while the KP clock is still running and actual conciliation efforts are scheduled in good faith.
But if the respondent has twice failed to appear after proper notice, the CFA may be issued before the outer limit expires.

3) “We can’t issue because there’s a related case already filed in court.”

Correct view: If a case was prematurely filed and the court/prosecutor requires a CFA, the proper step is to complete KP and present the CFA; otherwise, the filing risks dismissal/deferral. The barangay should continue KP unless the matter falls under an exception (see below). A pending court case is not a reason to withhold the CFA once KP ends.

4) “This involves a juridical person (e.g., a corporation), so no CFA.”

Correct view: Classic KP covers individuals. Disputes purely between juridical persons are typically outside KP; thus, no CFA is required. If an individual is a party personally, KP may still apply. Barangay staff should identify who the real parties are.

When the KP process and a CFA are not required (key exceptions)

You do not need barangay conciliation or a CFA when:

One party is the government or a government instrumentality.
The dispute involves a public officer in relation to official functions.
Serious crimes (generally, offenses punishable by >1 year imprisonment or >₱5,000 fine)—note: penalty thresholds in special laws can vary; check the specific statute charged.
No private offended party (e.g., victimless crimes).
Parties reside in different cities/municipalities, unless they fall under adjacent barangays and both parties consent to KP.
Urgent legal actions are needed (e.g., habeas corpus, injunction/TRO, BPO under VAWC, relief that would be rendered moot by delay).
Matters that are, by their nature, non-compromisable (e.g., civil status, validity of marriage, future support, jurisdiction of courts, etc.).
Disputes involving primarily real property located elsewhere when practical venue rules are not met.

If your case fits an exception, you may file directly without a CFA. If the barangay still insists on KP, politely point out the exception and proceed to file; the court or prosecutor ultimately decides.

“Pending complaints” excuse: how to respond, step-by-step

Check if your dispute is KP-covered. If an exception applies, you can file directly.
Compute the KP timelines. If mediation/conciliation has lapsed or the respondent defaulted twice, you may demand the CFA now.
Ask in writing for a CFA specific to your complaint, citing the applicable ground (time lapsed, failed settlement, non-appearance, repudiation). Attach proof of notices/hearings and your attendance.
Escalate if refused:
- Bring the issue to the City/Municipal Mayor (the Lupon is under the LGU) or the DILG field office for administrative guidance.
- Consider a letter to the Barangay Captain and Pangkat Chair reiterating that multiple pending complaints do not bar issuance for a ripened case.
- As a legal remedy, consult counsel about filing a petition for mandamus to compel the issuance of the CFA when the KP endpoint has been reached; issuance then is ministerial.
- Where conduct suggests neglect or abuse of authority, discuss with counsel whether an administrative complaint before appropriate bodies is warranted.
Preserve professionalism. Remember: barangay personnel juggle many cases; a concise, documented request often solves the impasse.

Consequences of a wrongful refusal

For the complainant: Delay risks prescription in criminal cases and laches in civil claims.
For the barangay: Persistent refusal despite KP endpoints can expose officials to administrative liability (neglect of duty), especially after higher-LGU or DILG guidance is ignored.

Practical drafting notes and templates

A. Short written request for a CFA

Re: Request for Certificate to File Action (KP Case No. ___) Dear ___, I respectfully request the issuance of a Certificate to File Action for the above case because:

[ ] Mediation/conciliation has exceeded KP timeframes (PB 15 days; Pangkat 15 + optional 15).

[ ] The respondent failed to appear on __ and __ despite proper summons.

[ ] Our settlement was repudiated on __ within 10 days. Kindly issue the CFA not later than ___ so I may protect my rights. Thank you.

Attach copies of: KP notices, minutes, attendance sheets, any settlement/repudiation, and your ID showing residence.

B. Checklist before you insist on a CFA

Parties are individuals residing in the same city/municipality (or both consent to adjacent-barangay KP).
Your dispute is compromisable and KP-covered.
KP clock has run, or a default or repudiation occurred.
Your request is in writing, with attachments.
You can clearly explain why other pending complaints are separate or not a bar to certification.

FAQs

Q: The barangay says they will issue the CFA only after all our other complaints finish. A: That is generally incorrect. If your specific complaint has hit a KP endpoint, the barangay should issue the CFA for that complaint. Other matters may continue on their own track.

Q: The respondent keeps skipping hearings. Do I really need to finish 30 days? A: No. After repeated non-appearance despite proper notice, the barangay may already issue a CFA (and may administratively note the default).

Q: We actually reached a settlement, but I signed under pressure. A: KP allows repudiation within 10 days for vices of consent. If properly repudiated, you may request a CFA thereafter.

Q: Can I bypass KP because I need urgent relief? A: Yes, when delay would defeat the relief (e.g., injunction/TRO, habeas corpus, BPO under VAWC). File directly and explain the exception.

Q: Our dispute involves a company. Do we still go through KP? A: If the parties are corporations only, KP typically does not apply. If individuals are parties (even if they are officers), KP may still apply in their personal capacity.

Bottom line

The barangay cannot indefinitely withhold a CFA just because there are other pending complaints.
Once your case reaches any KP endpoint (time lapsed, failed settlement, default, repudiation, failed arbitration), issuing the CFA is a ministerial duty.
Use written, documented requests; escalate appropriately if refusal persists; and act swiftly to avoid prescriptive pitfalls.

This article is for general information only and is not a substitute for legal advice tailored to your specific facts. For concrete action, consult a lawyer or the Public Attorney’s Office (PAO) in your locality.