Non-Appearance Penalty in Barangay Lupon Hearings (Philippines)

A comprehensive legal-practice guide

1. Barangay justice in a nutshell

Under Republic Act No. 7160, Book III, Title I, Chapter 7—better known as the Katarungang Pambarangay (KP) Law—most minor civil and criminal disputes must pass through mediation by the Punong Barangay and, if that fails, conciliation before the Pangkat Tagapamayapa (Lupon) before they can reach a court or government agency. Participation is personal and compulsory; lawyers may attend only as friends or advisers and never as substitutes for the parties.

2. Statutory anchors for compulsory appearance

Provision	Core rule
§399, §410–§415, §412 RA 7160	Mediation and conciliation are mandatory conditions precedent; parties must appear personally—representation is allowed only for minors, incompetents, juridical entities (through authorized officers), or when the party is outside the Philippines.
§410(b)(5)	“Willful failure or refusal to appear… without justifiable reason” triggers sanctions detailed below.
§515	Non-compliance with a settlement, award or any lawful order of the Lupon may be punished by ₱200–₱1 000 fine or 1 day–6 months imprisonment, or both, by the court.
Rule 71, Rules of Court (indirect contempt)	The Lupon or any party may move the first-level court to cite a recalcitrant party for indirect contempt; penalties can go up to ₱30 000 fine or six months’ imprisonment.

3. When appearance is required

Mediation hearing (Punong Barangay) – within 15 days from filing of complaint.
Constitution of Pangkat & conciliation hearings – must commence within 15 days from failure of mediation, finish within 15 days thereafter (extendable by another 15 days).
Execution hearings – if a settlement or arbitration award is defied.

The obligation covers not only the principal parties but also:

duly authorized representatives of corporations, partnerships or cooperatives;
guardians for minors and incompetents;
spouses in conjugal disputes (both must appear).

4. “Justifiable reason” for absence

Accepted excuses mirror those under ordinary litigation: serious illness, force majeure, sudden death in the immediate family, or other causes clearly beyond the party’s control. Travel, business workload, or counsel’s unavailability are not per se valid. Proof (medical certificate, airline cancellation notice, etc.) should be presented at the earliest practicable time.

5. Sanctions for non-appearance

Party in default	Immediate Lupon action	Longer-term consequences
Complainant	• Dismissal of the complaint. • Issuance of Certification to Bar Action (Form 13), preventing the complainant from refiling anywhere on the same cause of action.	• Bar subsists until the complainant personally appears, pays a Lupon-imposed fine (often ₱50-₱300), and the Lupon later issues a lift order or Certification to File Action. • Refiling despite the bar constitutes ground for dismissal by the court (lack of cause of action & failure of condition precedent).
Respondent	• Lupon issues a Certification to File Action (Form 14) in favor of the complainant. • Respondent loses the right to present any counterclaim arising from the same facts in court or agency proceedings.	• May still file an independent cause of action not stemming from the same transaction. • Persistent refusal can lead to indirect contempt or prosecution under §515 RA 7160.
Both parties	• Dismissal of the case with prejudice in the Lupon. • Both sides barred from litigating the dispute elsewhere until they purge the default.	• Any court filing without first lifting the bar is dismissible motu proprio. • Either party may later revive proceedings by a joint motion and payment of fines.

Note on fines imposed by the Barangay: The KP Law allows the Lupon to set a modest administrative fine (traditionally ₱20–₱300) as a pre-condition to lifting the bar. This is separate from, and usually lesser than, the fines a court may impose for contempt or criminal prosecution.

6. Indirect contempt route

If a party’s absence stalls the proceedings, the Lupon Chair or aggrieved party may file a verified petition for indirect contempt with the nearest first-level court (MTC/MCTC/MTCC). The court may:

order the absentee to explain or show cause;
after hearing, impose Rule 71 §7 penalties (fine ≤ ₱30 000, imprisonment ≤ 6 months, or both);
direct law-enforcement officers to ensure attendance at the barangay.

Contempt proceedings do not replace the Lupon’s own sanctions; they run concurrently.

7. Effect on prescriptive periods

Filing the complaint with the barangay interrupts prescription of the underlying action. If the complaint is dismissed because of the complainant’s non-appearance, prescription begins to run again from receipt of the Certification to Bar Action. Parties who intend to re-file must therefore act promptly once the bar is lifted.

8. Illustrative jurisprudence

Case	G.R. No. / Date	Holding
Serrano v. CA	108083, 5 Jul 1993	Complaint dismissed in RTC for lack of a valid KP certification; SC affirmed, emphasizing the mandatory nature of barangay appearance.
Peñalosa v. Olan	212589, 10 Jan 2018	Respondent’s unjustified absence warranted issuance of Certification to File Action; counterclaim in RTC later dismissed for failure to pass KP process.
Spouses Ramos v. People	190253, 16 Jan 2019	Ignoring Lupon summons amounted to indirect contempt; fine of ₱10 000 affirmed.
Royales v. IAC	62087, 29 Aug 1984 (PD 1508 era)	Clarified that filing directly in court without barangay conciliation—and without valid exemption—makes the action dismissible even if trial has begun.

9. Practical law-office guidance

Verify KP coverage first (exclusions: parties reside in different cities/municipalities unless adjoining barangays, offense punishable > 1 year or > ₱5 000 fine, etc.).
Advise clients to appear personally—remote attendance is permissible only if the Punong Barangay allows (see DILG MC 2020-101 on online mediation).
Document any legitimate excuse early and request resetting in writing.
Watch the 15-day windows; if the Lupon delays issuance of certifications, follow-up in writing—delay cannot be blamed on the parties.
When sued in court, always examine the docket for a genuine KP certification and whether the other side previously defaulted; this can be a potent ground for dismissal or motion to suspend proceedings.
Counsel ethics: lawyers who cause or connive in skipping KP proceedings risk administrative discipline for forum shopping or violation of the Lawyer’s Oath. See B.M. 1927, Bar Matter (2007) on obedience to barangay settlement mechanisms.

10. Interaction with court procedure

Rule on Summary Procedure (2019 Amendments) makes a valid KP certification an absolute condition precedent; the defect is non-waivable and may be noted by the court sua sponte.
Small Claims (A.M. 08-8-7-SC) likewise requires a certification—unless the claim is based on a foreign judgment or the parties reside in different cities.

11. Frequently asked questions

Question	Short answer
Can I send my lawyer instead?	No. Personal appearance is compulsory; counsel may sit as adviser only.
I was abroad when summoned—am I penalized?	No, if you designate an attorney-in-fact with a verified special power of attorney or appear upon return without unreasonable delay.
How long does the bar last?	Indefinitely, until you personally appear and the Lupon issues a lifting certification.
Can the Lupon jail me outright?	No. The Lupon may merely recommend prosecution or file an indirect-contempt petition; only a court may order imprisonment.
Is payment of the Lupon fine negotiable?	The amount is discretionary but modest; non-payment keeps the bar in force.

12. Key take-aways

Show up—the cost of absence far outweighs the inconvenience of attendance.
Non-appearance strikes at the very jurisdiction of subsequent courts or agencies.
Sanctions are multi-layered: administrative fines, dismissal or barring of actions, loss of counterclaims, contempt, and even criminal penalties.
Because prescription restarts upon dismissal, time truly is of the essence.
Lawyers must treat the KP process as a foundational litigation step, not a mere formality.

© 2025 | Prepared for Philippine legal practitioners and community mediators. This article synthesizes the KP Law, its implementing rules, Department of Justice circulars, and Supreme Court jurisprudence up to June 24 2025. It is for educational purposes and does not substitute for personalized legal advice.