Overview

Barangay conciliation—under the Katarungang Pambarangay (KP) system in the Local Government Code of 1991 (commonly, “KP Law”)—is a mandatory, pre-court mechanism for many disputes between individuals who reside in the same city or municipality. Personal appearance of the parties is the bedrock of this system. When a respondent (the person complained of) fails to appear, the KP process provides a structured response that protects the complainant’s right to proceed to court while discouraging dilatory behavior.

This article explains, in practical and doctrinal terms, everything you need to know about non-appearance by a respondent—from service of summons, scheduling, and allowable excuses, to sanctions, documentation, and the issuance of a Certificate to File Action (CFA).

1) Legal Architecture of Barangay Conciliation

Stages of the KP process
- Filing of Complaint with the Punong Barangay (PB).
- PB Mediation (up to 15 days, extendable for good cause).
- If unresolved, constitution of the Pangkat ng Tagapagkasundo (three neutral barangay conciliators).
- Pangkat Conciliation (up to 15 days, extendable once).
- If parties agree to arbitrate, the PB or Pangkat may render an arbitral award.
- Documentation: settlement, award, repudiation (if any), or issuance of certificates (CFA or Certificate to Bar Action).
Personal appearance is the rule. Parties must personally appear (generally without counsel), to encourage candor and community-based resolution. Representatives are allowed only in narrow circumstances (e.g., close family with written authority, or for minors/incompetents).
Coverage and common exceptions. KP conciliation is generally required for inter-personal disputes between natural persons residing in the same city/municipality. It does not cover, among others: offenses punishable by more than a year of imprisonment or a fine over the statutory threshold, disputes involving the government or public officers in relation to official functions, parties who reside in different cities/municipalities (with specific venue rules for adjoining barangays), or cases where urgent legal relief is necessary (e.g., habeas corpus, actions with provisional remedies where delay causes irreparable harm).

2) Service, Notice, and Scheduling: Foundations for Any “Failure to Appear”

Before a failure to appear can have legal consequences, the barangay must be able to show proper notice:

Summons/Notice should state the date, time, and place of the mediation/conciliation and must be actually served (preferably with proof of service—signature, certification by the barangay official who served, or an affidavit of service).
Reasonable lead time should be given. If service was short-notice, defective, or unclear, best practice is to reset and re-serve to cure defects.
Keep a paper trail: the KP record should contain the complaint, proof of service, minutes of proceedings, and any remarks regarding absence and reasons offered.

Tip: If the respondent contacts the barangay before the session to explain a conflict (illness, emergency, pre-booked travel, force majeure), the PB or Pangkat may recognize “justifiable cause” and reset.

3) First Non-Appearance at PB Mediation

Workflow

Call the case and note absence. Verify proof of service on the record.
Inquire about cause. If the respondent (or a messenger) communicates a justifiable reason, reset the mediation with a clear warning that attendance is mandatory.
If no justifiable cause is shown:
- The PB may issue a written warning and reset once to give the respondent a fair opportunity.
- Note on the minutes that failure was without justifiable cause.

Practical effect: A single non-appearance at the PB stage, if properly documented and unjustified, sets the stage for escalation when the matter proceeds to the Pangkat.

4) Non-Appearance at Pangkat Conciliation

This is the decisive stage for a respondent’s continued absence.

If the respondent again fails to appear without justifiable cause:

The Pangkat should:
1. Confirm proper service and record the absence.
2. Declare on record that the non-appearance is without justifiable cause.
3. Terminate barangay proceedings for failure of conciliation due to respondent’s absence/refusal to participate.
4. Issue a Certificate to File Action (CFA) in favor of the complainant.

Why a CFA matters: The CFA lifts the KP precondition, allowing the complainant to file the case in court or the prosecutor’s office (as applicable). Courts routinely dismiss cases that bypass KP conciliation; the CFA prevents such dismissal.

5) Sanctions and Contempt for Unjustified Non-Appearance

The KP system empowers barangay authorities to maintain order and deter defiance:

Direct contempt/fines: Willful refusal to appear without justifiable cause after due notice may be treated as direct contempt before the PB or Pangkat (typically resulting in a modest administrative fine reflected in KP guidelines). The amount is intentionally low to preserve the conciliatory character of the forum; its primary purpose is compliance, not punishment.
Escalation through documentation: While barangays are not courts of record with sheriffs, meticulously documenting the refusal strengthens the complainant’s position in subsequent judicial proceedings (e.g., rebutting claims that KP was bypassed, or contextualizing a party’s bad faith).
No arrests/commitments: KP authorities do not effect arrests for mere non-appearance. Coercive measures beyond minor contempt fines are not within the typical barangay toolkit.

Best practice: Issue a written notice of the contempt finding (or warning), note it in the minutes, and place it in the KP record together with proof of service.

6) What Counts as a “Justifiable Cause”?

Barangay authorities should evaluate excuses practically and humanely, but with an eye to preventing abuse:

Generally acceptable: Medical emergencies/illness (preferably with a medical note), death in the family, force majeure (flood, typhoon, transport shutdown), pre-booked immovable commitments known to the barangay in advance (e.g., court hearing, board exam), or other good-faith conflicts communicated before the session (when possible).
Generally not acceptable: Vague “not available,” workplace busyness without proof of immovable duty, silence/no response, habitual last-minute excuses, or requests to be represented by counsel alone (lawyers do not substitute for personal appearance in KP).

When in doubt, barangay officials can grant a one-time reset with a warning, then apply the consequences on repeated unjustified absence.

7) Special Situations

Multiple respondents. If some attend and others don’t, proceed with those present. Record who failed to appear. If the absence prevents meaningful conciliation, issue a CFA limited to the non-appearing parties or for the whole dispute if indivisible.
Counterclaims. A respondent who plans to sue back still must attend. Non-appearance does not excuse them from the KP precondition on their own claims.
Agreement to arbitrate. If parties voluntarily agree to arbitrate before the PB or Pangkat and the respondent then fails to appear at the arbitral hearing without justifiable cause, the arbitrator may proceed ex parte or consider the agreement breached and issue a CFA to the complainant.
Protective dynamics (violence/harassment). KP is not designed for cases needing urgent protective relief. If there is risk to safety, barangay officials should refer immediately to the proper court or authorities (e.g., VAWC cases under R.A. 9262, child protection, or where temporary protection orders are sought). KP can be dispensed with in such cases.
Inter-barangay or inter-city parties. Venue rules change when parties live in different barangays/cities, and in some configurations KP becomes non-mandatory. If KP is not a prerequisite, the complainant may go directly to court; however, if the barangay has already assumed the case and the respondent fails to appear, the barangay may close the record and issue a CFA out of prudence.

8) The Certificate to File Action (CFA): Form and Function

When issued: Upon failure of settlement due to a respondent’s unjustified non-appearance, outright refusal to participate, or bad-faith conduct that makes conciliation futile.
What it contains: Case title, names/addresses of parties, brief subject of dispute, recitation that KP conciliation failed (with the specific reason, e.g., respondent’s non-appearance), dates of attempts, and the signature/seal of the issuing KP authority (PB or Pangkat Chair).
Where it is used: Filed together with the complaint/information in court or prosecutor’s office (for cases where KP is a condition precedent).
Validity window: Use the CFA promptly. While the law does not impose a standard short expiry, delay can create factual controversy (e.g., whether circumstances changed or parties moved). Good practice is to file without undue delay.

9) Distinguishing “Certificate to Bar Action” (CBA)

For completeness, the CBA is typically issued when the complainant fails to appear without justifiable cause; it may bar the complainant from filing the same cause of action in court. This is not the instrument used against a non-appearing respondent. In respondent-absence scenarios, the complainant’s remedy is the CFA.

10) Record-Keeping, Minutes, and Paper Trail

A strong KP record should include:

Complaint and annexes.
Proofs of service (summons/notices) with dates and mode of service.
Minutes for each setting, indicating who appeared, who failed to appear, time called, and any explanations received.
Orders/resolutions (e.g., resetting, warnings, contempt note).
Final document: Settlement, Arbitral Award, Repudiation, or CFA.

Thorough documentation protects the integrity of the process and smooths the transition to formal litigation if needed.

11) Practical Playbook for Barangay Officials

At First Absence

Verify service; call the case on record.
Note absence; solicit/record any explanation.
If excuse appears justifiable, reset once; issue a written warning.
If not justifiable, reset once with express warning of consequences and record it.

At Second Absence (or clear refusal)

Confirm second proper service.
State on record that absence is without justifiable cause.
Terminate conciliation for failure of appearance.
Issue CFA to complainant; consider a minor contempt fine per KP rules; record it.

Always

Keep minutes precise and signed.
Hand copies of orders/notices to present parties the same day and serve absent parties promptly.
Preserve neutrality; even when issuing a CFA, avoid adjudicating the merits.

12) Common Pitfalls and How to Avoid Them

Defective Service: Cure with re-service; attach proof.
Over-reliance on phone calls/texts: Use them for courtesy, but always backstop with written notices and receipts/certifications.
Premature CFA: Issue only when there is clear failure attributable to respondent’s unjustified non-appearance or refusal, after at least a fair opportunity to participate.
Turning KP into a trial: KP is informal and conciliatory. Keep proceedings non-adversarial and focused on settlement.
Ignoring safety concerns: If there’s risk, refer to appropriate urgent judicial/administrative remedies; KP is not a shield against protection orders.

13) Frequently Asked Questions

Q1: Can the barangay compel attendance with arrest? No. KP relies on community authority, documented notices, and—where warranted—minor contempt sanctions and CFA issuance, not custodial enforcement.

Q2: If the respondent appears once and then stops attending, what happens? Document each subsequent unjustified absence. If conciliation becomes futile, issue a CFA.

Q3: Can lawyers appear instead of the parties? Generally no—personal appearance is required. Lawyers may attend only in limited, consensual, or representative capacities that do not replace the party’s presence.

Q4: If the respondent resides in another city, is KP still required? Often no. Many inter-city disputes are exempt. But if the barangay already commenced proceedings and the respondent still does not appear, the barangay may close the record and issue a CFA, while noting the residency context.

14) Model Language (Templates)

A. Reset Notice After First Unjustified Absence

Please be informed that the mediation/conciliation in [Case Title] is reset to [Date/Time] at [Venue]. Your personal appearance is mandatory. Failure to appear without justifiable cause may result in termination of barangay proceedings and the issuance of a Certificate to File Action to the complainant, and may subject you to appropriate sanctions under the Katarungang Pambarangay rules.

B. Minute Entry on Non-Appearance

Case called at [time]. Respondent [Name] failed to appear despite proper service per [mode, date], [proof attached]. No justifiable cause received as of call time. Proceedings reset to [Date/Time] with warning issued in open session.

C. Finding of Failure of Conciliation Due to Non-Appearance

The Pangkat finds that Respondent [Name] failed to appear without justifiable cause on [dates] despite proper notices. The Pangkat terminates conciliation and issues a Certificate to File Action in favor of Complainant [Name].

15) Key Takeaways

Personal appearance is mandatory; non-appearance without a valid excuse triggers closure of KP proceedings and CFA issuance.
The CFA is the complainant’s gateway to court or prosecution after a respondent’s unjustified absence.
Barangay officials should focus on proper service, fair opportunity, clear warnings, and meticulous documentation.
Safety-sensitive cases and certain exempt categories may bypass KP altogether; barangay authorities should identify these early.

16) Practical Checklist (One-Pager)

Complaint received; venue/coverage checked.
Summons/notice properly served with proof.
First setting held; attendance noted.
If absence: assess excuse → reset once with warning (if justifiable); else reset with warning and record.
Second absence/refusal: record, terminate, issue CFA.
Consider minor KP sanctions; note in minutes.
Furnish parties with copies; archive complete record.

This article is intended for practical use by barangay officials, litigants, and counsel navigating KP proceedings, with a focus on the respondent’s failure to appear and its procedural consequences.