G.R. No. MTJ-00-1265. April 6, 2000
Valencides Vercide, complainant, vs. Judge Priscilla T. Hernandez, Fifth Municipal Circuit Trial Court, Clarin and Tudela, Misamis Occidental, respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Valencides Vercide and his wife filed a case for recovery of possession of a parcel of land in Upper Centro, Tudela, Misamis Occidental, against Daria Lagas Galleros, a resident of the same municipality. The complainants, however, are residents of Dipolog City. The case was filed directly in the Municipal Circuit Trial Court without prior referral to the Lupong Tagapamayapa for conciliation. The defendant raised this non-compliance with the Katarungang Pambarangay Law as an affirmative defense in her answer.
Respondent Judge Priscilla T. Hernandez, in an Order dated July 15, 1997, dismissed the case without prejudice, citing Section 3 of P.D. No. 1508, which mandates that disputes involving real property shall be brought in the barangay where the property is situated. She held that the failure to first bring the dispute for barangay conciliation was a fatal jurisdictional defect. The complainants moved for reconsideration, arguing that under Sections 408(f) and 409(c) of the Local Government Code (R.A. 7160), prior barangay conciliation is not required when the parties are not actual residents of the same city or municipality, as in this case where the complainants reside in a different city. The respondent judge denied the motion, insisting on her interpretation of the Katarungang Pambarangay Rules.

ISSUE

Whether respondent judge committed gross ignorance of the law in dismissing the case for non-compliance with the barangay conciliation requirement, despite the parties being residents of different cities.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court found respondent judge guilty of gross ignorance of the law. The legal logic is clear from the statutory framework and established jurisprudence. Section 408 of the Local Government Code explicitly provides the exceptions to the requirement of prior barangay conciliation. Specifically, Section 408(f) states that disputes involving parties who actually reside in barangays of different cities or municipalities are excepted, unless the barangays adjoin each other and the parties agree to submit to settlement. Since the complainants reside in Dipolog City and the defendant in Tudela, Misamis Occidental—different municipalities—the dispute falls under this exception. The general venue rule for real property disputes under Section 409(c) does not override this explicit exception. The Court had already authoritatively interpreted these provisions in prior cases like Royales v. Intermediate Appellate Court, holding that conciliation is not a precondition when the parties reside in different municipalities or cities. The respondent judge’s duty was to follow these settled rulings. Her failure to correctly apply the law, either due to ignorance or disregard of controlling jurisprudence, constitutes gross ignorance of the law. She was fined Two Thousand Pesos (P2,000.00) and sternly warned.