● Section 417 of the Local Government Code readily discloses the two-tiered mode of enforcement of an amicable settlement. The provision reads:
Under the first mode of enforcement, the execution of an amicable settlement could be done on mere motion of the party entitled thereto before the Punong Barangay. The proceedings in this case are summary in nature and are governed by the Local Government Code and the Katarungang Pambarangay Implementing Rules and Regulations.
The second mode of enforcement, on the other hand, is judicial in nature and could only be resorted to through the institution of an action in a regular form before the proper City/Municipal Trial Court. The proceedings shall be governed by the provisions of the Rules of Court. (Sebastian vs. Ng, G.R. No. 164594, April 22, 2015)
● The amicable settlement which is not repudiated within the period therefor may be enforced by execution by the Lupon through the Punong Barangay within a time line of six months, and if the settlement is not so enforced by the Lupon after the lapse of the said period, it may be enforced only by an action in the proper city or municipal court as provided for in Section 417 of the LGC of 1991, as amended, which reads:
Section 417. Execution. - The amicable settlement or arbitration award may be enforced by execution by the lupon within six (6) months from the date of the settlement. After the lapse of such time, the settlement may be enforced by action in the appropriate city or municipal court.Under this provision, an amicable settlement or arbitration award that is not repudiated within a period often (10) days from the settlement may be enforced by: first, execution by the Lupon within six (6) months from the date of the settlement; or second, by an action in the appropriate city or municipal trial court if more than six (6) months from the date of settlement has already elapsed.
Under the first mode of enforcement, the execution of an amicable settlement could be done on mere motion of the party entitled thereto before the Punong Barangay. The proceedings in this case are summary in nature and are governed by the Local Government Code and the Katarungang Pambarangay Implementing Rules and Regulations.
The second mode of enforcement, on the other hand, is judicial in nature and could only be resorted to through the institution of an action in a regular form before the proper City/Municipal Trial Court. The proceedings shall be governed by the provisions of the Rules of Court. (Sebastian vs. Ng, G.R. No. 164594, April 22, 2015)
● The amicable settlement which is not repudiated within the period therefor may be enforced by execution by the Lupon through the Punong Barangay within a time line of six months, and if the settlement is not so enforced by the Lupon after the lapse of the said period, it may be enforced only by an action in the proper city or municipal court as provided for in Section 417 of the LGC of 1991, as amended, which reads:
SEC. 417. Execution. The amicable settlement or arbitration award may be enforced by execution by the Lupon within six (6) months from the date of the settlement. After the lapse of such time, the settlement may be enforced by action in the proper city or municipal court.Section 417 of the Local Government Code provides a mechanism for the enforcement of a settlement of the parties before the Lupon. It provides for a two-tiered mode of enforcement of an amicable settlement executed by the parties before the Lupon, namely, (a) by execution of the Punong Barangay which is quasi-judicial and summary in nature on mere motion of the party/parties entitled thereto; and (b) by an action in regular form, which remedy is judicial. Under the first remedy, the proceedings are covered by the LGC and the Katarungang Pambarangay Implementing Rules and Regulations. The Punong Barangay is called upon during the hearing to determine solely the fact of non-compliance of the terms of the settlement and to give the defaulting party another chance at voluntarily complying with his obligation under the settlement. Under the second remedy, the proceedings are governed by the Rules of Court, as amended. The cause of action is the amicable settlement itself, which, by operation of law, has the force and effect of a final judgment. (Vidal vs Escueta, G.R. No. 156228, December 10, 2003)
