Hon. Jay A.

Desquitado
Punong Barangay/ Lupon Chairman

On 4 March 2020, we received notices from your office informing us of the scheduled
mediation and conciliation proceedings, to wit:

1. Brgy. Case No. 49-0129 entitled "Erlinda B. Lo vs. Josue O. Astive, Jr." which
was scheduled to be heard by the Pangkat Tagapagkasundo at 8:00am on 9 March 2020;

2. Brgy. Case No. 52-0301 entitled "Atty. Josue Ocampo Astive, Jr. vs. Erlinda B.
Lo and Janice B.Lo" which was scheduled to be hear by you, the Lupon Chairma at
10:00am on 9 March 2020;

3. Damages

Admittingly, undersigned Erlinda Lo failed to attend the mediation and conciliation

proceedings -- but on valid grounds.

Inasmuch as I wanted to attend the aforesaid proceedings last 9 March 2020, I could
not as I was confined in the hospital that day after having met an accident on the
afternoon of 8 March 2020. Thus, I sent my representative to simply apprise you of
the same and to have the proceedings re-scheduled on another convenient date.

On 9 March 2020, I sent a representative to merely apprise you that I was confined
in the hospital and could thus not attend the scheduled mediation proceeding that
day.

However, instead of simply of re-scheduling both cases, you consolidated Brgy. Case
Nos. 52-0301 and 49-0129. I was advised that during the concilitation proceeding
in Brgy. Case No. 49-0129, Atty. Josue Astive, Jr. moved for the consolidation of
Brgy. Case Nos. 52-0301 and 49-0129 to which you immediately agreed to thus setting
both cases for hearing before the Pangkat Tagapagkasundo.

We take exception to the consolidation of the two cases. As a rule of procedure,

the lupon chairman may set the case for hearing with the Lupon Tagapagkasundo only
after said chairman has intially heard the case and failed in mediating the same.

Obviously, Brgy. Case No. 52-0301 did not undergo mediation with the lupon
chairman.Your acts of unreluctantly granting Mr. Astive Jr's request for
consolidation and of elevating his complaint to the Pagkat Tagapagkasundo clearly
short circuits the procedure laid down in the Katarungang Pambarangay Law. Further,
such acts glaringly constitute partiality and conduct unbecoming of a Lupon
Chairman. In view of this, udersigned Erlinda and Janice Lo moves for your
inhibition from hearing Brgy. Case No. 52-0301, and further that the said case be
remanded and be heard by your first kagawad who would be acting as Lupon Chairman
for the said case.

Also, we would like to bring your attention to the events that transpired during
the mediation proceedings in Brgy.Case No. 50-0218 last 9 March 2020.

We are not oblivious of the fact that you favored and continually favor Mr. Astive
Jr.'s interests in matters before the Lupon Tagapamayapa. Take for example the time
you obstinately refused our letter request to re-schedule the proceedings relative
to the complaint against us by Mr. Astive on the ground that there must be a speedy
disposition of cases filed before the Barangay Lupon. Had it not been for our
relentless plea, you would have dismissed the case and issued a Certificate to File
Action in favor of Mr. Astive Jr. Meanwhile, with regard to the complaint we filed
against Mr. Astive in Brgy.Case No. 49-0129 and which was initially set on 3
February 2020, it only took a simple text message from Mr. Astive Jr. (which he
even sent on the day of the 3 February 2020 mediation) for you to re-schedule the
proceedings in that case.

Another instance is when

Moreover, it was worthy

Phrases that u could use:

I was neither given the chance to contest the allegations of the Complaint filed
against me in Brgy. Case No. 52-0301 nor was I given the opportunity to recount my
story relative to the matters thereto.