Below is a comprehensive discussion of a Barangay Official’s authority to provide an affidavit in court after mediation (conciliation) proceedings under Philippine law. This overview focuses primarily on the barangay justice system established under the Local Government Code of 1991 (Republic Act No. 7160) and its implementing rules, commonly referred to as the Katarungang Pambarangay system. While this discussion is intended to provide in-depth information, it does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal issues, consulting an attorney is advisable.

1. Overview of the Katarungang Pambarangay System

1.1. Legal Basis

Chapter 7, Title I, Book III of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 7160 (Local Government Code of 1991) governs the Katarungang Pambarangay.
This system replaced the old conciliation mechanism under Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 1508 and seeks to promote amicable settlement of disputes at the barangay level without resorting immediately to courts.

1.2. Purpose

The primary objective is to decongest the courts by encouraging disputants to arrive at amicable settlements through mediation or conciliation.
It further aims to empower barangay officials—namely the Lupon Tagapamayapa (the conciliation body)—in facilitating peaceful dispute resolution within the community.

1.3. Composition

Lupon Tagapamayapa: Chaired by the Punong Barangay (Barangay Captain) and composed of members appointed for their integrity, impartiality, independence, and sense of fairness.
Pangkat Tagapagkasundo: A mediation/conciliation panel constituted from the Lupon members to hear and resolve specific disputes brought before the barangay.

2. Confidentiality in Mediation Proceedings

2.1. General Rule of Confidentiality

The law places strict confidentiality on matters discussed during mediation or conciliation.
Section 412(c) of R.A. 7160 underscores that the discussions and admissions made during conciliation proceedings are confidential to encourage frank and open dialogue, and to facilitate amicable settlement.

2.2. Legal Effect of Confidentiality

Because of this confidentiality, parties and the lupon members (including the Barangay Chairperson and the Pangkat Tagapagkasundo) are generally prohibited from testifying or disclosing matters discussed during mediation proceedings.
The rationale is to protect the integrity of the barangay justice system and ensure that parties feel safe making candid admissions or concessions in the hopes of arriving at a settlement.

2.3. Confidentiality vs. Public Policy

Philippine courts typically respect the principle that certain communications in alternative dispute resolution (ADR) mechanisms—like barangay conciliation—should not be used against any party in subsequent litigation.
This principle is akin to “settlement negotiations privilege” in other jurisdictions. Once parties believe their statements can be used against them, they may be less inclined to negotiate in good faith.

3. Barangay Officials’ Authority to Provide an Affidavit in Court

3.1. Prohibition on Disclosing Mediation Proceedings

Barangay officials who took part in the conciliation or mediation are not allowed to disclose the specifics of any admission, proposal, or statement that a party made during mediation.
Section 414 of R.A. 7160 provides that lupon members (and others involved in the proceeding) cannot be “questioned or made to testify” in any court about any matter taken up in the conciliation unless the parties themselves consent to that disclosure.

3.2. Can a Barangay Official Execute an Affidavit?

In general, a barangay official may execute an affidavit only if:
1. It does not violate the confidentiality rules under the Katarungang Pambarangay law.
2. The affidavit pertains to facts or knowledge the official has outside of the conciliation/mediation session.
3. Any statement made is not about an admission or settlement proposal discussed during mediation.
If the official’s knowledge solely stems from the mediation proceedings, that information cannot be revealed. Doing so may violate the secrecy or confidentiality mandated by law.

3.3. Examples Where an Affidavit May Be Allowed

Observation of events outside the conciliation process: For example, if a Barangay Tanod or the Punong Barangay saw a crime scene or personally witnessed an incident unrelated to or before the mediation, they can provide an affidavit about that.
Formal or ministerial verifications: Barangay officials may certify (via affidavit or certification) the fact that no amicable settlement was reached or that the parties complied or failed to comply with certain procedural aspects (e.g., a Certification to File Action). This type of affidavit is typically limited to stating that the matter was referred to the barangay and that the barangay process was either concluded or terminated without a settlement.

3.4. Affidavits Violating Confidentiality

An affidavit that discloses what one party said, admitted, or offered during mediation would likely violate the confidentiality provisions.
A court may strike out or disregard such an affidavit if it clearly pertains to settlement discussions covered by the confidentiality rule.

4. Legal Consequences of Violating Confidentiality

4.1. Possible Administrative Liabilities

Barangay officials are expected to act within the bounds of law. Disclosing privileged or confidential information from mediation proceedings may subject them to:
- Administrative sanctions for misconduct or abuse of authority.
- Possible liability under the Local Government Code or related administrative issuances.

4.2. Evidentiary Issues

If a barangay official provides an affidavit containing details that are protected by confidentiality, the adverse party can move to exclude it as inadmissible evidence.
Courts generally uphold the confidentiality rule to protect the efficacy of Katarungang Pambarangay and settlement processes.

5. Certification to File Action

5.1. What It Is

When no settlement is reached, or when a dispute is not covered by the barangay’s conciliation mandate, the Lupon Secretary or Punong Barangay issues a “Certification to File Action.” This certifies that conciliation proceedings have been conducted and terminated, allowing parties to proceed to court.

5.2. Not a Disclosure of Details

The Certification does not divulge what transpired in the mediation. It simply states:
- The nature of the dispute.
- That mediation/conciliation was conducted.
- That the proceeding failed to reach an amicable settlement or was otherwise terminated.

5.3. Difference From an Affidavit

The Certification to File Action is a procedural document required before the courts will entertain certain civil or criminal complaints arising from disputes covered by the Katarungang Pambarangay.
An affidavit, on the other hand, generally contains factual statements and may be used as evidence. It is critical that any factual statements in an affidavit do not violate the secrecy of barangay proceedings.

6. Jurisprudence and Guidance

While specific Supreme Court rulings on the exact question of barangay officials providing affidavits about mediation details are relatively few, the overarching principles are:

Encouragement of Amicable Settlement
The law strongly favors settlement without litigation. Because of that, confidentiality is vital, and disclosing details from mediation undercuts that principle.
Strict Interpretation of Confidentiality
Courts err on the side of protecting the confidentiality of mediation/conciliation communications to ensure parties are not deterred from participating candidly.
Exceptions Must Be Explicit
Any exception to the confidentiality rule—such as when both parties expressly allow disclosure—must be clear and explicit. Absent such an agreement, the barangay official cannot testify or provide an affidavit about the mediation specifics.

7. Practical Considerations for Barangay Officials

Distinguish Between Mediation Matters and Personal Knowledge
- If you, as a barangay official, have personal knowledge of the underlying facts (e.g., you witnessed the event in question or have official records unrelated to the mediation process), you can typically execute an affidavit on those matters.
- However, anything learned exclusively through the mediation (like admissions, proposals, or statements) must remain confidential.
Limit Affidavits to Procedural Facts
- Generally, you can provide an affidavit or certification stating that parties appeared (or failed to appear), that you scheduled sessions, or that the dispute did not settle.
- Refrain from disclosing what parties said, how they negotiated, or why the settlement failed.
Seek Advice When Uncertain
- If there is any doubt on whether information is confidential, consult with the municipal or city legal officer, or request guidance from the Department of the Interior and Local Government (DILG) or an attorney, to avoid liability.
Maintain Neutrality and Impartiality
- The role of barangay officials, especially Lupon members, is to remain neutral mediators. Providing an affidavit that bolsters one party’s position (by revealing statements from the mediation) may be seen as compromising that neutrality and violating the spirit of the Katarungang Pambarangay.

8. Summary and Key Takeaways

Confidentiality is paramount: Anything said or admitted during barangay mediation (conciliation) proceedings is protected by law and cannot be disclosed in court without the express consent of the parties involved.
Barangay officials can provide affidavits only to the extent that they do not violate confidentiality. Affidavits may be given regarding facts independent of the mediation process (e.g., personal observations, official records unrelated to settlement discussions).
Prohibited disclosures: Statements or admissions made by disputants in mediation, any negotiation details, or the dynamics of settlement attempts.
Consequences of violation: Affidavits breaching confidentiality may be excluded as inadmissible, and barangay officials risking administrative or other legal sanctions for disclosing confidential information.
Certification to File Action: Required procedural document if no settlement is reached; it does not serve as an evidentiary affidavit about what transpired in mediation.
Consult legal professionals when in doubt to ensure compliance with legal and ethical obligations under the Katarungang Pambarangay system.

Final Note

The authority of barangay officials to provide an affidavit in court after mediation is tightly circumscribed by the confidentiality requirements enshrined in the Local Government Code and related regulations. Barangay officials must exercise caution to avoid divulging information obtained solely through conciliation proceedings. When properly observing these limits, an affidavit can be submitted regarding matters outside the mediation’s confidential scope—but never about privileged discussions or admissions made during the mediation itself.