Magno v. Jacoba, AC No. 6296m Nov. 22, 2005.
"X x x.
Section 415. Appearance of Parties in Person. - In all
katarungang pambarangay proceedings, the parties must appear in
person without the assistance of the counsel or representative, except for
minors and incompetents who may be assisted by their next of kin who are not
lawyers.
The above-quoted provision clearly requires the
personal appearance of the parties in katarungan pambarangayconciliation proceedings, unassisted by counsel
or representative. The rationale behind the personal appearance
requirement is to enable the lupon to secure first hand and direct information
about the facts and issues,[8] the
exception being in cases where minors or incompetents are parties. There can be
no quibbling that laymen of goodwill can easily agree to conciliate and
settle their disputes between themselves without what sometimes is the
unsettling assistance of lawyers whose presence could sometimes obfuscate and
confuse issues.[9]
Worse still, the participation of lawyers with their penchant to use their
analytical skills and legal knowledge tend to prolong instead of expedite
settlement of the case.
The prohibition against the presence of a lawyer in a barangay conciliation
proceedings was not, to be sure, lost on respondent. Her defense that the
aforequoted Section 415 of the LGC does not apply since complainant addressed
herSumbong to the barangay captain of Brgy. San Pascual who
thereafter proceeded to hear the same is specious at best. In this regard,
suffice it to state that complainant wrote her Sumbong with the end in view of availing herself of the
benefits of barangay justice. That she addressed her Sumbong to
the barangay captain is really of little moment since the latter chairs the Lupong
Tagapamayapa.[10]
Lest it be overlooked, the prohibition in question applies to all katarungan
barangay proceedings. Section 412(a)[11]the
LGC of 1991 clearly provides that, as a precondition to filing a complaint in
court, the parties shall go through the conciliation process either before the lupon chairman or the lupon or pangkat. As what happened in this case, thepunong barangay,
as chairman of the Lupon Tagapamayapa, conducted the conciliation proceedings to
resolve the disputes between the two parties.
Given the above perspective, we join the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline in
its determination that respondent transgressed the prohibition prescribed in
Section 415 of the LGC. However, its recommended penalty of mere admonition
must have to be modified. Doubtless, respondent’s conduct tended to undermine
the laudable purpose of the katarunganpambarangay system. What compounded matters was when respondent
repeatedly ignored complainant’s protestation against her continued appearance
in the barangay conciliation proceedings.
X x x.”
