A.M. No. MTJ-11-1786 - Diaz vs. Gestopa, Jr.

Felicisima R. Diaz filed an administrative complaint against Judge Gerardo E. Gestopa, Jr. of the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) in Naga, Cebu.
The complaint pertained to the handling of Civil Case No. R-595 (Felicisima Rivera-Diaz v. Spouses Ruel & Diana Betito and Isidro Pungkol), an unlawful detainer case.

On April 27, 2009, the complainant initiated the unlawful detainer case before the MTC of Naga, Cebu.
The case was scheduled for a pre-trial conference on July 8, 2009.
Due to a heart ailment, the complainant sent her nephew, Elmer Llanes, to represent her at the conference.

During the pre-trial conference, Judge Gestopa recommended referring the case for barangay conciliation pursuant to Section 408 (g) of the Local Government Code.
The complainant’s counsel objected and moved for mediation instead.
The judge maintained that, since the subject property was in Naga and because the complainant had been a resident there, the referral to the barangay was proper.

The complainant contended that she was no longer a resident of Naga, stating her current residence was in Dumlog, Talisay City, Cebu.
She moved for a reconsideration of the referral, arguing that such referral contravened the Rules on Summary Procedure.
Additionally, she pointed out that a Certification to File Action in court was already issued on May 20, 2008 by Barangay North Poblacion, rendering a second referral unnecessary.
On July 20, 2009, Judge Gestopa denied the motion for reconsideration.

Dissatisfied with the denial, the complainant filed the administrative complaint alleging:

Incompetence and gross ignorance of the law.
Neglect of duty and conduct unbecoming of a judge by unduly delaying case resolution.
Apparent judicial bias, prompting a request to transfer the case.

On May 5, 2010, the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) directed Judge Gestopa to submit his comment on the complaint.
In his August 2, 2010, Comment, Judge Gestopa defended his action by stating:

The referral to the barangay was made in good faith to enable amicable settlement.
The complainant was attempting to circumvent the provisions of the Katarungang Pambarangay Law.
The Certification to File Action attached to her motion for reconsideration evidenced her previous attempt at barangay conciliation.

He also noted that on November 16, 2009, the Lupong Tagapamayapa of Barangay North Poblacion declared that the barangay conciliation had failed, leading to a subsequent mediation at the Philippine Mediation Center (PMC) which concluded as “Unsuccessful Mediation” on February 17, 2010.

In a memorandum dated January 12, 2011, the OCA found Judge Gestopa guilty of gross ignorance of the law and procedure.
The memorandum recommended imposing a fine of Forty Thousand Pesos (₱40,000.00) and redocketing the administrative case as a regular administrative matter.

Whether Judge Gestopa erred in referring Civil Case No. R-595 to barangay conciliation despite the case falling under the Revised Rules on Summary Procedure.
Whether the judicial exercise of discretion under Section 408 (g) of the Local Government Code justifies the referral in light of complainant’s claim of no longer residing in Naga.
Whether the act of referring the case for barangay conciliation resulted in undue delay, thus violating the mandatory requirements of expeditious case resolution under the Rules on Summary Procedure.
Whether this misapplication of procedural rules constitutes gross ignorance of the law, warranting administrative sanctions against the judge.