G.R. No.: A.M. No. MTJ-11-1786; June 22, 2011
Case Parties/Title: Felicisima R. Diaz, Complainant, vs. Judge Gerardo E. Gestopa, Jr., Municipal Trial Court, Naga, Cebu, Respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Felicisima R. Diaz filed an unlawful detainer case (Civil Case No. R-595) before the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Naga, Cebu, presided by respondent Judge Gerardo E. Gestopa, Jr. During the pre-trial conference on July 8, 2009, respondent judge, over the objection of complainant’s counsel, referred the case to barangay conciliation pursuant to Section 408(g) of the Local Government Code, asserting it was proper as the subject property was in Naga and complainant was a resident there. Complainant moved for reconsideration, arguing the referral violated the Rules on Summary Procedure, that she was no longer a resident of Naga (residing in Dumlog, Talisay City, Cebu), and that a Certification to File Action from the barangay, dated May 20, 2008, had already been issued after previous conciliation failed. Respondent judge denied the motion. Complainant filed this administrative complaint, alleging gross ignorance of the law, undue delay, and bias. In his Comment, respondent judge defended his referral as made in good faith to promote amicable settlement, noting complainant had previously sought barangay conciliation. He admitted that barangay conciliation ultimately failed (November 16, 2009) and the case was later referred to the Philippine Mediation Center, which also reported unsuccessful mediation (February 17, 2010).

ISSUE

Whether respondent Judge Gerardo E. Gestopa, Jr. is administratively liable for Gross Ignorance of the Law and Procedure for referring an unlawful detainer case, governed by the Revised Rules on Summary Procedure, to barangay conciliation.

RULING

Yes, respondent judge is guilty of Gross Ignorance of the Law and Procedure. The Supreme Court adopted the findings of the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA). The unlawful detainer case is expressly governed by the Revised Rules on Summary Procedure, which mandates a speedy resolution, requiring judgment within thirty (30) days after the submission of affidavits and position papers. Referring such a case to barangay conciliation contravenes this objective and is an unsound exercise of discretion, as established in Farrales v. Camarista. Furthermore, the Rules on Summary Procedure already provide for a preliminary conference (Sections 7 and 8) precisely to explore amicable settlement, making a separate barangay referral unnecessary. The referral also became moot given the existing Certification to File Action showing prior failed conciliation. The Court noted respondent judge’s two prior administrative penalties for failing to decide summary procedure cases within the reglementary period. Good faith or lack of malice is not an excuse for violating basic procedural rules. Under Rule 140 of the Rules of Court, gross ignorance of the law is a serious charge. Considering his previous infractions, the Court imposed a fine of Twenty-One Thousand Pesos (₱21,000.00) with a stern warning.