G.R. No. 247472 - Hao vs. Galang

Complainant Valencides Vercide and his wife filed a case for recovery of possession of a land located in Upper Centro, Tudela, Misamis Occidental against defendant Daria Lagas Galleros.
Defendant Galleros is a resident of Tudela, while complainants are residents of Dipolog City.
The case was filed directly in court without prior referral to the Lupong Tagapamayapa (barangay conciliation).

Defendant raised non-referral to Lupong Tagapamayapa as an affirmative defense.
Respondent Judge Priscilla T. Hernandez ordered dismissal of the case without prejudice on July 15, 1997, citing P.D. No. 1508, Section 3: disputes involving real property must be brought in the barangay where the property is located, and parties should undergo barangay conciliation first.
Complainants moved for reconsideration citing provisions of R.A. No. 7160 (Local Government Code of 1991), particularly Sections 408 and 409, arguing that prior resort to barangay conciliation was not required because the parties do not reside in the same city or municipality or adjoining barangays.

In an order dated September 9, 1997, respondent denied reconsideration relying on the Katarungang Pambarangay Rules implementing R.A. No. 7160, specifically Rule VIII, paragraph (a) and Rule VI, Section 3(c).
Respondent held that parties with disputes involving real property must first undergo barangay conciliation in the barangay where the property is situated before court acquires jurisdiction.
She further based dismissal on Rule 16, Section 1 (j) of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure citing non-compliance with pre-condition for filing claim.

Grave abuse of authority for unjust dismissal of case;
Ignorance of the law as a judge; and
Grave disobedience of Supreme Court jurisprudence exempting disputes involving parties not residing in the same city or municipality from barangay conciliation.

Respondent judge claimed she merely followed the law and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

Recommended dismissal of administrative complaint, reasoning the issue was purely judicial and any error did not amount to bad faith or knowingly unjust judgment.

Cited Tavora v. Veloso ruling that disputes involving parties residing in different cities or municipalities are exempt from barangay conciliation.
Noted P.D. No. 1508 and R.A. No. 7160 provisions emphasizing Lupon’s lack of jurisdiction over such disputes.
Held that provisos regarding real property disputes do not expand lupon jurisdiction to different municipalities.

Found respondent’s quotation and interpretation of relevant laws and rules erroneous and taken out of context.
Determined that respondent showed gross ignorance of the law and disregard of Supreme Court rulings.
Emphasized the obligation of judges to be competent, independent, and well-versed in the law under the Code of Judicial Conduct.
Reiterated that failure to apply Supreme Court rulings amounts to gross ignorance of the law.
Distinguished that not every erroneous ruling warrants administrative sanction but gross ignorance does.
Imposed a fine of P2,000 and issued a warning to respondent.

Whether respondent judge committed grave abuse of authority and ignorance of the law by dismissing the case for failure to undergo barangay conciliation despite the parties residing in different municipalities.
Whether resort to the Lupong Tagapamayapa is mandatory before filing a civil case involving real property when parties do not reside in the same city or municipality or adjoining barangays.
Whether respondent’s dismissal of the case constitutes administrative offense warranting disciplinary action.