Section 2 of Article I of the Internal Regulation and the regulations transposing the Katarungang-Pambarangay Hague Law state that “these rules must be interpreted in a liberal manner in order to promote their objective of helping opponents reach a fair, quick and inexpensive amicable settlement at the barangay level.” 9, par. 2, Rule I, Pambarangay katarungang rules, stress delivered. The out-of-court settlement, which acquired the strength and effect of a final court decision, could be carried out by filing an application for execution before the competent court. In the case of the bar, the revised Qatar-Pambarangay law provides for a two-step procedure for the application of an out-of-court settlement: (a) by execution by the Punong Barangay, quasi-judicial and summary, to the simple “no” of the party entitled to do so; and b) an ordinary act, which is to reduce justice. However, the nature of the execution does not preclu her removal of the right of withdrawal under article 2041 of the Civil Code. The availability of the right of withdrawal arises from the wording of section 417 itself, which provides that the amicable settlement “may be enforced by execution by the Lionpon within six (6) months from its date or by appeal to the relevant municipal or district court, albeit beyond that period. The use of the word “may” makes the procedure clearly or only optional in the revised directory of the Law of Qatar Pambarangay. Dear Robby, Republic Act (RA) 7610 or the 1991 National Government Code provides parties with a channel to resolve their disputes without having to go to court. It is clearly stated, under Section 408 of the Local Government Code (LGC), that the Lupon (Council) of each Barangay (village) has the authority to bring together parties who actually reside in the same city or commune in order to settle any dispute amicably, except for the exceptions mentioned in it. An out-of-court settlement that will be reached appropriately before the Barangay has a binding effect and can be implemented thereafter.

As stated under the LGC: this application for review of the certiorari is the subject of the December 29, 1995 decision of the Court of Appeals 1 Eight Division, written by Justice Jaime M. Lantin, in which Judges Eduardo G. Montenegro and Jose C. De la Rama. the rejection of the petitioner`s request for reconsideration for insufficient content and resolution of 10 April 1996, in which the request for reconsideration was denied. There are cases where the parties reach a settlement agreement (“Kazakh” or whatever it is) that must be written in a language or dialect known to the parties, signed by them and certified by the president of Pangkat.