INDIVIDUAL ACCOUNT ON THE ACTUAL OBSERVATION OF

CONCILIATION/MEDIATION PROCEEDING OF A PARTICULAR CASE

AT BRGY. UGAC NORTE, TUGUEGARAO CITY ON JUNE 2, 2021

In a society where decision-making processes are in the hands of a

few; where the ability to dominate because one is more powerful than
another party, is still the way of life, mediation and/or conciliation is seen
as a viable option in resolving disputes because the process entails
finding a mutually beneficial solution to the conflict. It is an alternative to
the court-led or legal framework of dispute resolution; it covers procedural
and psychological issues that the law does not tackle. Furthermore, the
parties equally claim the power to determine the outcomes of their own
conflict.

The mediation/conciliation proceeding was presided over by

Barangay Councilor Alexader Ulep of Barangay Ugac Norte, Tuguegarao
City, Cagayan who was assigned by the Punong Barangay. The
complainant and the respondents were relatives and neighbors living in
the same compound in Barangay Ugac, Norte, Tuguegarao City,
Cagayan. The complainant is employed as contact tracer at the City
Health Office. The issue stemmed from the spreading of fake news
initiated by the respondents against the complainant by spreading from
their neighbors that herein complainant was making money (commission)
out of contact tracing. Allegedly, herein complainant is accepting a
percentage for every person she had contact traced. The complainant
lodged her complaint in the barangay to confront the respondents for their
misdeeds and to explain to them that it was not her who recommended to
place their compound in a zonal containment (lockdown). Upon receipt of
the complaint, the Punong Barangay issued a summon to both parties for
their personal appearances before him and their confrontation was
scheduled on June 2, 2021.
 Based on the video shared by one of our groupmates through
Messenger. As I heard from the video, the facts of the case started
sometime in February 26, 2021 when there was an outbreak in Ugac
Norte, Tuguegarao City due to rising numbers of Covid-19 positive.
Accordingly, Respondent as one of the respondents and his son had
undergone antigen test conducted by the City Health Office wherein the
son tested positive due to his comorbidity (kidney transplant) while
Respondent tested negative. Due to health protocols, the Provincial
Health Office decided to conduct another test, this time, Swab Test or RT-
PCR test to both of them on March 1, 2021 and the result of the test came
out wherein the son tested positive for acquiring Covid-19 virus while
Respondent tested negative. As a result, the City Health Office thru the
complainant conducted contact tracing to the households of the
respondent wherein two were tested positive and one negative. When the
complainant was about to contact traced the respondent, he refused,
stating that he was already Covid-19 virus free. The complainant then
explained to the respondent that the antigen test is different from RT-PCR
test and at the same time convince him to undergo swab test because it is
the confirmatory test to determine whether or not he is really free from the
said virus. However, the respondent exclaimed to the complainant that if
she wants the test, she can just request to the PHO for his negative result.
The complainant further stated that Respondent Nick cannot be contacted
anymore because allegedly, his number was already blocked. The matter
was relayed by the complainant to the City Health Officer who in turn told
the complainant that he will call the PHO, so that they will be the one to
conduct RT-PCR against him since he is employed at the PDRMMO. In
short, the PHO conducted swab test against Respondent Nick wherein he
tested positive again. As a result, the City Health Office thru the
complainant as a contact tracer conducted contact tracing in order to find
out who is the carrier of the virus in their compound. Also, there was a
report from the Punong Barangay that on March 1, 2021, Respondent
celebrated his birthday and he had a dinking spree with other persons.
The Punong Barangay also wanted to rule out who is the carrier within
compound. However, Respondent refused to give details on who were the
persons he was in closed contact with. Hence, the matter was again
relayed by the complainant to the City Health Officer who in turn instructed
the Punong Barangay to put the entire compound into a zonal
containment (lock down). As a consequence, the respondents harbored
ill-feelings against the complainant and even spreading fake news that
she was making money (percentage/commission) out of contact tracing.
After hearing the side of the complainant, Nick and the other respondents
admitted that indeed they are the ones who spread the fake news and
harbored ill-feelings against the complainant, hence, they asked for
forgiveness in which the complainant acceded provided that they will not
do it anymore and always follow the protocols which in turn also acceded
by the respondents.

After listening to the statements of both parties, the good Barangay

Councilor explained to the respondents the consequences of their actions.
He reiterated House Bill 6817, “An Act Prohibiting the Discrimination
Against Person Who Are Declared, Confirmed, Suspect, Probable, and
Recovered Cases of Covid-19, Repatriated Filipinos, Health care
Workers, Responders and Service Workers and Providing Penalties for
violation Thereof”. He also explained to the respondents that the
complainant has the duty to protect the confidentiality of the nature of their
status being tested positive for Covid-19 virus as a contact tracer, and he
can vouch for it. He even made an example that he has a neighbor who
was tested positive and it was only a week after he was informed of the
situation. He further stated that the complainant who is a health care
worker and contact tracer and the respondents who are tested positive
has equal protection of the said bill and anyone found to be in violation of
it will be meted severe penalty. All told, after the mediation/conciliation
process, the parties amicably settled their disputes.

The case is very relevant today because it is related to what we are

experiencing right now. And, if this case is brought to the regular court, it
will entail a lot of sacrifices most specially in spending money in choosing
the counsel to represent both in court litigation. But of course, because of
this Alternative Dispute Resolution, the case was brought before the
Barangay in order to settle amicably their disputes and this will lessen the
burden to both parties involved in the case. However, based on what I
heard from the mediator Barangay Councilor Ulep, the bill he used was
not an enacted law. He should have used an appropriate law relating it to
the complaint filed by the complainant. Like for example, RA No. 11332
or “Act Providing Policies and Prescribing Procedures on Surveillance and
Response to Notifiable Diseases, Epidemics, and Health Events of Public
Health Concern, and Appropriating Funds Therefor, repealing for the
Purpose Act No. 3573, Otherwise Known as the "Law on Reporting of
Communicable Diseases". Section 9 of RA 11332 enumerated the
prohibited acts which include, among other, the non-cooperation of the
person or entities identified as having the notifiable disease, or affected by
the health event of public concern. This specific provision of the law
should have been cited by the mediator not the bill he referred to the
case. Also, the spreading of malicious statements by discrediting the
honor of the complainant will redound to slander by deed as defined in the
Revised Penal Code.

Public participation in our justice system is of significant importance,

not only from the democratic perspective, but also from the perspective that
the system can only be effective by being supported by public confidence
and cooperation. The criminal procedure is no exception. However, the type
and the extent of public participation in the court procedure varies from
country to country, and even within one country, it varies depending on the
procedure. And, because of Alternative Dispute Resolution I was able to
experience this public participation although done virtually. And as a
student of this subject and a stakeholder of the legal profession, we must
be a productive and active citizen most specially in the administration of
justice.

MERLYN M. CASIBANG JR.