Unlawful Detainer and Barangay Conciliation: Why Judges Must Follow Summary Procedure

The Supreme Court's decision in Diaz v. Judge Gestopa, Jr. (A.M. No. MTJ-11-1786, June 22, 2011) reminds judges that certain cases must be resolved quickly and cannot be delayed by unnecessary referrals. The case involves a judge who sent an unlawful detainer case back to barangay conciliation, causing months of delay. The Court found this to be gross ignorance of the law and fined the judge.

The Facts of the Case

Felicisima Diaz filed an unlawful detainer case against Spouses Ruel and Diana Betito and Isidro Pungkol before the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Naga, Cebu. The case was docketed as Civil Case No. R-595.

During the pre-trial conference, Judge Gerardo Gestopa, Jr. recommended referring the case to barangay conciliation under a provision of the Local Government Code. Diaz's counsel objected and moved for mediation instead. The judge insisted he had the authority to refer the case back to the barangay.

Diaz argued that she was no longer a resident of Naga, now residing in Talisay City. She also pointed out that the case had already been referred to the lupon before, and a Certification to File Action had been issued on May 20, 2008. The judge denied her motion for reconsideration.

The Issue

The central question was whether a judge may refer an unlawful detainer case to barangay conciliation when the case falls under the Revised Rules on Summary Procedure.

The Ruling

The Supreme Court ruled that the judge committed gross ignorance of the law. Unlawful detainer cases are covered by the Revised Rules on Summary Procedure, which requires judgment within thirty (30) days after receipt of the last affidavits and position papers. This period is mandatory.

The Court explained that the Rules on Summary Procedure were created to achieve "an expeditious and inexpensive determination of cases." The speedy resolution of unlawful detainer cases is a matter of public policy.

Why the Referral Was Improper

The Court found several reasons why the referral was wrong:

First, the Rules on Summary Procedure already provide for a preliminary conference designed to explore amicable settlement. Sections 7 and 8 of the Rule mandate this conference precisely to give parties room to settle. Referring the case to the barangay for the same purpose was redundant.

Second, the case had already been through barangay conciliation. A Certification to File Action had been issued. Referring the case again rendered the earlier conciliation proceedings moot.

Third, while the Local Government Code provision appears to give courts discretion to refer cases to the lupon, this discretion cannot be exercised in a way that defeats the purpose of the Rules on Summary Procedure. The Court cited Farrales v. Camarista (383 Phil. 832, 2000) to emphasize this point.

Previous Offenses Matter

The Court also noted that this was not the judge's first offense. He had been penalized twice before for failing to decide cases under the Rules on Summary Procedure within the reglementary period. In Casia v. Judge Gestopa, Jr. (A.M. No. MTJ-99-1181), he was fined P1,000.00. In Saceda v. Judge Gestopa, Jr. (A.M. No. MTJ-00-1303), he was fined P10,000.00.

Given these prior infractions, the Court imposed a fine of P21,000.00 for gross ignorance of the law, with a stern warning that similar offenses in the future would be dealt with more severely.

Practical Takeaways

• Unlawful detainer cases must be resolved fast. The Rules on Summary Procedure require judgment within 30 days. Delays caused by unnecessary referrals violate this mandate.
• Barangay conciliation has limits. If parties have already undergone conciliation and a Certification to File Action has been issued, referring the case again is improper.
• The preliminary conference is the proper venue for settlement. The Rules on Summary Procedure already provide a mechanism for amicable settlement during the preliminary conference.
• Judges must know basic procedural rules. Failure to apply elementary rules of procedure constitutes gross ignorance of the law, and good faith is not a valid defense.
• Litigants should be aware of their rights. If a court improperly delays a summary procedure case, parties may seek remedies, including administrative complaints against the judge.

This article is general information and not legal advice. For your specific situation, consult a lawyer or ask ASG Legal AI.