Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 101 views

    2 Vercide v. Judge Priscilla Hernandez

    Uploaded by

    Lucy Heartfilia
    The respondent judge dismissed a complaint for failure to undergo barangay conciliation proceedings despite the fact that the parties did not reside in the same municipality, showing patent ignorance of the law. The Supreme Court ruled that the respondent judge committed grave abuse of authority and was grossly ignorant of the law, as recourse to barangay conciliation is not necessary when parties do not reside in the same municipality or adjoining barangays. The respondent judge was ordered to pay a fine and warned about repetition.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    2 Vercide v. Judge Priscilla Hernandez

    Uploaded by

    Lucy Heartfilia
    101 views6 pages
    The respondent judge dismissed a complaint for failure to undergo barangay conciliation proceedings despite the fact that the parties did not reside in the same municipality, showing patent ignorance of the law. The Supreme Court ruled that the respondent judge committed grave abuse of authority and was grossly ignorant of the law, as recourse to barangay conciliation is not necessary when parties do not reside in the same municipality or adjoining barangays. The respondent judge was ordered to pay a fine and warned about repetition.

    Original Title

    2 Vercide v. Judge Priscilla Hernandez,

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The respondent judge dismissed a complaint for failure to undergo barangay conciliation proceedings despite the fact that the parties did not reside in the same municipality, showing patent ignorance of the law. The Supreme Court ruled that the respondent judge committed grave abuse of authority and was grossly ignorant of the law, as recourse to barangay conciliation is not necessary when parties do not reside in the same municipality or adjoining barangays. The respondent judge was ordered to pay a fine and warned about repetition.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pptx, pdf, or txt
    101 views6 pages

    2 Vercide v. Judge Priscilla Hernandez

    Uploaded by

    Lucy Heartfilia
    The respondent judge dismissed a complaint for failure to undergo barangay conciliation proceedings despite the fact that the parties did not reside in the same municipality, showing patent ignorance of the law. The Supreme Court ruled that the respondent judge committed grave abuse of authority and was grossly ignorant of the law, as recourse to barangay conciliation is not necessary when parties do not reside in the same municipality or adjoining barangays. The respondent judge was ordered to pay a fine and warned about repetition.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pptx, pdf, or txt
    of 6

    [A.M. 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:
    • Petitioners Valencides Vercide and his wife filed a case against
    private respondent Daria Lagas Galleros for recovery of
    possession of a piece of land located in Upper Centro, Tudela,
    Misamis Occidental.
    • Respondent Galleros is a resident of the same municipality
    Defendant Galleros is a resident of the same municipality, while
    petitioners are residents of Dipolog City. Because of this fact, the
    case was filed in Court without prior referral to the Lupong
    Tagapamayapa.
    • Motion for reconsideration was filed by the Petitioners alleging that PD No.
    1508 has been repealed by Section 409 (c) of RA No. 7160, stating that
    recourse to barangay conciliation proceedings is not necessary where the
    parties do not reside in the same municipality or city or in adjoining
    barangays.
    • Said motion was dismissed by the Respondent Judge; hence, this Petition
    charging her of grave abuse of authority and ignorance of the law.

    • Issues:
    Whether or not the Respondent Judge gravely erred in dismissing the
    complaint for failure to satisfy the barangay conciliation poceedings, despite the
    fact the parties do not reside in the same municipality or city?
    • Ruling:
    • Yes, respondent showed patent ignorance, if not disregard
    of Supreme Court’s rulings on the jurisdiction of the Lupong
    Tagapamayapa by her erroneous quotations of the provisions
    of the Katarungang Pambarangay Rules implementing RA No.
    7160. While a Judge may not be held administratively
    accountable for every erroneous error or decision she render,
    her error may be so gross or patent that she should be
    administratively discipline for gross ignorance of the law and
    incompetence.
    • In this case respondent at first cited PD No. 1508 as basis of her action.
    When her attention was called to the fact that this had been repealed by
    Sec. 409 (c) of RA No. 7160, respondent, who obviously was more intent
    in justifying her previous order than correcting her error, quoted out of
    context the provisions of the Katarungang Pambarangay Rules
    implementing the Katarungang Pambarangay provisions of RA No. 7160.
    She does violated Canon 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct which
    provides that “In every case, a judge shall endeavor diligently to ascertain
    the facts and the applicable law unswayed by partisan interest, public
    opinion or fear of criticism.”
    • Contrary to respondent’s interpretation, it is clear even from the Katarungang
    Pambarangay Rules that recourse to barangay conciliation proceedings is not
    necessary where the parties do not reside in the same municipality or city or in
    adjoining barangays. Rule VI of the same states pertinent to Sec. 408 (f) and Sec. 2:
    “Exception to amicable settlement: Disputes involving parties who actually reside in
    barangays of different cities or municipalities, except where such barangay units
    adjoin each other and the parties thereto agree to submit their differences to amicable
    settlement by an appropriate lupon.” It is clear that recourse to barangay conciliation
    proceedings is not necessary where the parties do not reside in the same municipality
    or city or in adjoining barangays. Hence, there is no need for prior referral to the
    lupon. WHEREFORE, respondent is hereby found guilty of gross ignorance of the law
    and is hereby ordered to pay a FINE of TWO THOUSAND (P2,000.00) PESOS with a
    WARNING that repetition of the same or similar acts will be dealt with more severely.

    You might also like