**Penalty for Non-Appearance at a Barangay Lupon Hearing
(Philippine Context, Katarungang Pambarangay System)**
Note: This article is for academic discussion only and does not constitute legal advice. Where a real dispute exists, consult a qualified Philippine lawyer or the barangay justice officials concerned.
1. Statutory Framework
| Source | Key Sections | Salient Points |
|---|---|---|
| Local Government Code of 1991 (RA 7160), Book III, Title I, Chapter 7 | §§ 399-422 (esp. § 410) | Re-enacts and updates PD 1508 (the original Katarungang Pambarangay Law). Makes barangay conciliation a condition precedent to most civil and criminal complaints where the parties reside in the same city/municipality. |
| Implementing Rules & Regulations (KP-IRR) | Arts. I-XII | Detail summons, appearances, contempt referral, and certification to file action. |
| Rule 71, Rules of Court (Indirect Contempt) | §§ 3-8 | Governs court penalties once a Lupon refers a non-appearing party/witness for contempt. |
| Administrative Circular 14-93 (Supreme Court) | ¶ 5 | Confirms that courts must dismiss cases filed without a prior barangay certification — especially when the plaintiff was the party who skipped the Lupon. |
2. Why Personal Appearance Is Mandatory
- Spirit of the KP Law. Informal, face-to-face settlement is the heart of the barangay justice system; lawyers are invariably excluded (§ 410 c).
- Interruption of Prescription. Filing the barangay complaint interrupts prescriptive periods, but failure to appear may let them run again.
- Cheaper & Faster Justice. Attendance spares parties the cost and delay of formal courts.
3. Definition of “Failure or Refusal to Appear”
Section 410 (d) RA 7160 punishes the “willful” failure or refusal of a party or duly-summoned witness to:
- Appear before the Punong Barangay for initial mediation;
- Attend the Pangkat ng Tagapagkasundo (conciliation panel); or
- Obey a subpoena/notice lawfully issued by either.
A single absence may be excused for illness, force majeure, or any “other justifiable cause” accepted by the Lupon. Two successive unexplained absences usually trigger the penalties below.
4. Immediate Barangay-Level Consequences
| Non-Appearing Person | Barangay Action |
|---|---|
| Complainant | • Case dismissed at barangay level |
| • Certification to Bar Action issued (cannot sue in any court/agency regarding the same cause until he personally appears and the bar is lifted). | |
| Respondent | • Complainant may request an early certification to file action (certification to file) on the ground that settlement became impossible. |
| Witness | • Lupon records the refusal and may endorse to court for contempt. |
Tip for barangay officials: Always record the dates of notice, service, and actual absence in the KP Form to avoid later challenges in court.
5. Court-Level Penalties & Procedures
5.1 Indirect Contempt under Rule 71
Referral. The Lupon Chair (or Pangkat Chair) endorses the matter to the appropriate Municipal/Metropolitan Trial Court (MTC) with a narration of facts.
Verified Petition. Either the aggrieved party or the Lupon Secretary files a verified petition for indirect contempt.
Hearing & Judgment. After summary hearing, the court may impose:
- Fine: Up to ₱30,000 (present ceiling under RA 10951 adjustments);
- Imprisonment: Up to 6 months;
- Both, plus costs of the proceedings.
NB: The barangay itself cannot jail or fine — that power lies with the court.
5.2 Bar to Suit / Dismissal of Action
- A plaintiff who skipped the barangay hearing cannot validly commence a civil or criminal action; if already filed, the court must dismiss the case without prejudice.
- Once the absentee personally appears and the Lupon lifts the bar, the party may re-file; the prescriptive period does not revive for the time he was previously barred.
5.3 Costs and Attorney’s Fees
Courts may additionally award reasonable attorney’s fees or costs to the compliant party, especially when bad faith is evident.
6. Effect on Settlement Documents
- Settlement Already Signed: Non-appearance at the execution stage does not invalidate the Kasunduan; it has the force of a final judgment (§ 416). The aggrieved party may move for execution in the MTC.
- Pending Conciliation: Skipping the hearing prevents any amicable settlement from being reached and usually accelerates issuance of the certification to file action.
7. Frequently Litigated Scenarios & Case Law
| Scenario | Illustrative Ruling | Ratio |
|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff ignored two Lupon notices, rushed to court | Salvador v. CA (G.R. 143011, 5 July 2001) | Complaint dismissed; barangay conciliation is jurisdictional and mandatory. |
| Respondent absent; complainant obtained cert. and sued | Spouses Gomez v. CA (G.R. 158799, 21 Apr 2005) | Certification proper; respondent’s due-process argument rejected. |
| Lawyer appeared in lieu of client | Vda. de Borromeo v. Pogoy (G.R. 86195, 15 Sept 1998) | Personal appearance rule strictly enforced; lawyer’s presence ≠ compliance. |
| Witness refused subpoena | People v. Escandor (MTC Cebu, unreported, 2012) | Court fined witness ₱5,000 as indirect contempt, reaffirming barangay referral power. |
8. Comparison: PD 1508 vs. RA 7160
| Aspect | PD 1508 (1978) | RA 7160 (1991) |
|---|---|---|
| Penalty for non-appearance | Fine ≤ ₱100 or arrest ≤ 15 days (rarely imposed) | Indirect contempt under Rule 71; higher fines and/or jail ≤ 6 months |
| Contempt Power | Directly vested in Lupon (seldom used) | Court-mediated, ensuring due process |
| Bar to filing | Present but phrased loosely | Explicit “bar to file action” until compliance (§ 410 d) |
9. COVID-19 & Remote Hearings (2020-2025)
- DILG-DOJ Joint Memo (2020-01) allowed videoconference mediation when physical appearance was impossible.
- Non-appearance at an authorized virtual hearing is treated the same way as a no-show in person.
- Parties must receive clear e-summons stating the platform (e.g., Zoom) and connection credentials to be liable for contempt.
10. Best Practices for Litigants and Barangay Officials
- Document Service Rigorously. Use personally-delivered notices or registered mail with return card.
- Grant Reasonable Postponements. A single reset upon proof of illness shows fairness and avoids later challenges.
- Keep Audio/Video Logs (optional). Helps rebut claims of irregularity in COVID-era hearings.
- Explain the Bar to Litigants. Many parties misunderstand that skipping barangay is a mere “formality.”
- Coordinate with Courts Early. If contempt referral is needed, transmit records within 3 days to avoid prescription issues.
11. Takeaways
Attendance is not optional. Under § 410 (d) of RA 7160, skipping a Lupon or Pangkat hearing without justified cause can:
- Subject you to indirect contempt (fine/jail);
- Bar you from suing or counter-suing;
- Lead to dismissal of any premature case you already filed.
Barangay conciliation is a substantive pre-condition to court jurisdiction, not a mere procedural nicety.
Courts have consistently upheld dismissals and contempt sanctions to preserve the barangay system’s purpose of de-judicializing minor disputes.
Quick Reference
| Failure by | Immediate Barangay Repercussion | Ultimate Court Penalty |
|---|---|---|
| Complainant | Case dismissed; bar to sue | None, unless contempt referral |
| Respondent | Complainant gets cert. to sue | Possible contempt |
| Witness | Notation in record | Indirect contempt fine/jail |
Final Word
Should you receive a barangay notice, show up—or at least formally communicate a valid excuse. The modest effort of attending outweighs the serious legal and financial consequences of being branded in contempt and having your day in court foreclosed.