PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA

This chapter presents the results of gathered data, statistical analysis and

interpretation of findings in relation to the assessment of Barangay Justice System in

the Poblacion Region of Cauayan City, Isabela. These tables are sequenced in the

same order by which the statement of the problem appears in chapter I.

Typology of Disputes Filed in the Barangay

Table 1 presents the typologies of disputes filed in the barangay. The first

column indicates the typologies, the second column indicates the frequency or number

of respondents who answered always, and the third column indicates the rank of each

typology out of 12 indicators in the first column.

Table 1. Typology of Disputes Filed in the Barangay.

Indicators Frequency Rank

1. Dispute between debtor and creditor 66 1
2. Dispute between neighbors 36 2
3. Dispute related to violation of dignity 27 3
4. Dispute related to offenses against persons 22 4
5. Dispute between families 11 5
6. Dispute related to tenancy conflict 10 6
7. Dispute related to personal property conflict 9 7
8. Dispute related to accidents 4 8
9. Dispute related to real property conflict 3 9
10. Dispute between consumer and retailer 2 10
11. Dispute between employer and employee 1 11
12. Dispute related to sexual and gender-based violence 0 12

Dispute between debtor and creditor includes collection of unpaid debt, breach

of loan contract, excessive interest from principal amount of debt, and similar

conflicts. As shown above, it has a frequency of 66 which means it ranked first in

typologies of disputes filed in the barangay.

 41

Dispute between neighbors includes gossiping, perversion, nuisance, loud

noises, and similar conflicts. As shown above, it has a frequency of 36 which means it

ranked second in typologies of disputes filed in the barangay.

Dispute related to violation of dignity includes false accusation, slander, libel,

cyber libel, public humiliation, verbal abuse, unlawful disclosure of private

information, and similar conflicts. As shown above, it has a frequency of 27 which

means it ranked third in typologies of disputes filed in the barangay.

Dispute related to offenses against persons includes physical injury, threat,

assault, and similar conflicts. As shown above, it has a frequency of 22 which means it

ranked fourth in typologies of disputes filed in the barangay.

Dispute between families includes infidelity between spouses, maintenance

and custody of children, conjugal properties, intervention of family relatives, and

similar conflicts. As shown above, it has a frequency of 11 which means it ranked

fifth in typologies of disputes filed in the barangay.

Dispute related to tenancy conflict includes payment of rental fees bills, breach

of lease contract, behavioral conflict between lessor and lessee, and similar conflicts.

As shown above, it has a frequency of 10 which means it ranked sixth in typologies of

disputes filed in the barangay.

Dispute related to personal property conflict includes theft, usurpation, damage

to property, negligence, unlawful usage, and similar conflicts. As shown above, it has

a frequency of 9 which means it ranked seventh in typologies of disputes filed in the

barangay.
 42

Dispute related to accidents includes motor vehicle accident, workplace

injuries and other mishaps. As shown above, it has a frequency of 4 which means it

ranked eighth in typologies of disputes filed in the barangay.

Dispute related to real property conflict includes ownership, possession, land

grabbing, boundary issues, trespassing or unlawful entry, and similar conflicts. As

shown above, it has a frequency of 3 which means it ranked ninth in typologies of

disputes filed in the barangay.

Dispute between consumer and retailer includes payment, quality of goods or

services and similar conflicts. As shown above, it has a frequency of 2 which means it

ranked tenth in typologies of disputes filed in the barangay.

Dispute between employer and employee includes payment of compensation,

working conditions, safety of employee, abuse of trust of employer such as

embezzlement and qualified theft or negligence of duties by employee, and similar

conflicts. As shown above, it has a frequency of 1 which means it ranked eleventh in

typologies of disputes filed in the barangay.

Dispute related to sexual and gender-based violence includes sexual

discrimination, acts of lasciviousness, seduction, and similar conflicts. As shown

above, it has a frequency of 0 which means it ranked twelfth in typologies of disputes

filed in the barangay.

 43

Typology of Disputes and Frequency of Filing

Table 2 presents the typologies of disputes filed in the barangay and their level

of frequency. The first column indicates the typologies, the second column indicates

the weighted mean of total accumulated frequency divided by 96 respondents and the

third column indicates the description based on weighted mean.

Table 2. Typology of Disputes Filed in the Barangay and their Level of Frequency.

Indicators Mean Description

1. Dispute between debtor and creditor 4.57 Always
2. Dispute between neighbors 3.55 Often
3. Dispute between families 3.51 Often
4. Dispute related to violation of dignity 3.51 Often
5. Dispute related to offenses against persons 3.43 Often
6. Dispute related to accidents 3.16 Sometimes
7. Dispute related to personal property conflict 3.05 Sometimes
8. Dispute related to real property conflict 3.01 Sometimes
9. Dispute related to tenancy conflict 2.97 Sometimes
10. Dispute between employer and employee 2.70 Sometimes
11. Dispute between consumer and retailer 2.63 Sometimes
12. Dispute related to sexual and gender-based violence 2.50 Rarely

As shown above, disputes that are “Always” filed in the barangay are dispute

between debtor and creditor, with a weighted mean of 4.57.

Disputes that are “Often” filed in the barangay are: dispute between

neighbors, with a weighted mean of 3.55; dispute between families, with a weighted

mean of 3.51; dispute related to violation of dignity, with a weighted mean of 3.51;

and dispute related to offenses against persons, with a weighted mean of 3.43.

Disputes that are “Sometimes” filed in the barangay are: dispute related to

accidents, with a weighted mean of 3.16; dispute related to personal, with a weighted

mean of 3.05; dispute related to real property conflicts, with a weighted mean of 3.01;

dispute related to tenancy conflicts, with a weighted mean of 2.97; dispute between
 44

employer and employee, with a weighted mean of 2.70; and dispute between

consumer and retailer, with a weighted mean of 2.63.

Disputes that are “Rarely” filed in the barangay are dispute related to sexual

and gender-based, with a weighted mean of 2.50.

Major Causes of Disputes as to Type of Conflict and their Frequency

Table 3 presents the major causes of disputes and their level of frequency. The

first column indicates the major causes of disputes in each topology, the second

column indicates the major cause of dispute, and the third column indicates the

weighted mean of each major cause.

Table 3. Major Causes of Disputes as to Type of Conflict and their Frequency.

Indicators Major Cause Mean

1. Dispute between neighbors Information Conflict 3.35
2. Dispute between families Information Conflict 3.18
3. Dispute related to violation of dignity Information Conflict 3.02
4. Dispute related to accidents Information Conflict 3.01
5. Dispute related to tenancy Information Conflict 2.88
6. Dispute between consumer and retailer Information Conflict 2.86
7. Dispute related to offense against persons Relationship Conflict 3.00
8. Dispute related to personal property Interest Conflict 2.93
9. Dispute related to real property Interest Conflict 3.24
10. Dispute related to gender-based violence Interest Conflict 2.82
11. Dispute between employer and employee Values Conflict 2.99
12. Dispute between debtor and creditor Values Conflict 3.18

The findings of this study indicate that the major cause of dispute between

neighbors, dispute between families, dispute related to violation of dignity, dispute

related to accident, dispute related to tenancy conflict, and dispute between consumer

and retailer is information conflict, with a weighted mean of 3.35, 3.18, 3.02, 3.01,

2.88, and 2.86, respectively. Information conflicts arise when people have different

or insufficient information, or disagree over what data is relevant. It may also be

 45

caused by each party working on a different set of data or looking at the same data

differently (Vilendrer Law, 2023).

The major cause of dispute related to offenses against person is relationship

conflict with a weighted mean of 3.00. Relationship conflicts occur when there are

misperceptions, strong negative emotions, or poor communication. One person may

distrust the other and believe that the other person’s actions are motivated by malice or

an intent to harm the other. This could be caused by misunderstandings in

communication. It could be clashing personality types that need different things

(Vilendrer Law, 2023).

The major cause of dispute related to real property conflict, dispute related to

personal property conflict, and dispute related to gender-based violence is interest

conflict with a weighted mean of 2.93, 3.24, and 2.82 respectively. Interest

conflicts are caused when two or more groups are competing for the same thing. It can

also happen when people want to avoid the same thing. Such conflicts may occur over

issues of money, resources, or time. Parties often mistakenly believe that in order to

satisfy their own needs, those of their opponent must be sacrificed (Vilendrer Law,

2023).

The major cause of dispute between employer and employee, and dispute

between debtor and creditor is values conflict with a weighted mean of 2.99 and 3.18

respectively. Values conflicts are created when people have perceived or actual

incompatible belief systems. Where a person or group tries to impose its values on

others or claims exclusive right to a set of values, disputes arise. It can also be caused

by beliefs and expectations about work conduct and behavior (Vilendrer Law, 2023).
 46

Strategies Utilized by the Lupong Tagapamayapa in Resolving Disputes

Table 4 presents the strategies utilized by the Lupong Tagapamayapa in

resolving disputes and averting violence. The first column indicates the strategies

utilized by the Lupong Tagapamayapa and the second column indicates the strategies’

rank out of 16 indicators.

Table 4. Strategies Utilized by the Lupong Tagapamayapa in Resolving Disputes.

Indicators RANK
1. Ground Rules 1
2. Codes of Conduct for Intervenors 2
3. Sequencing Strategies and Tactics 3
4. Option Identification 4.5
5. Focusing on Commonalities 4.5
6. Creating Safe Spaces for Communication 6
7. Conflict Assessment 7
8. Convening Processes 8
9. Reframing 9
10. Ripeness-Promoting Strategies 10
11. Establishing Trust in Mediation 11
12. Costing 12
13. Reality Testing 13
14. Caucus 14
15. Shuttle Diplomacy 16
16. Action-Forcing Mechanisms 16

According to Table 4, Ground Rules ranked as the top strategy utilized by the

Lupong Tagapamayapa. This strategy aligns with the existing literature, which

emphasizes the importance of ground rules in dispute resolution processes. Ground

rules are based on the belief that all parties involved should be treated equally and

fairly. These rules outline the expected behavior and procedures that are considered

fair but are often neglected when conflicts escalate (Maiese, 2004). The prominence of

ground rules in both the study's findings and the literature highlight their significance

in promoting a fair and equitable resolution of disputes.

 47

It is followed by Codes of Conduct for Intervenors which ranked as the

second strategy utilized by the Lupong Tagapamayapa. Just as ground rules set the

codes of conduct for participants, mediators also have codes of conduct. While some

are negotiated on a case-by-case basis, others are fairly standard and are specified in

various existing documents (Maiese, 2004).

Next is Sequencing Strategies and Tactics which ranked as the third strategy

utilized by the Lupong Tagapamayapa. Mediators dealing with very large social

conflicts have to skillfully manage a very complex and diverse set of challenges. In

order to do this, these people must think about the best way to order or sequence the

issues involved in their conflict (Weiss & Rosenberg, 2003).

Option Identification ranked as the fourth strategy utilized by the Lupong

Tagapamayapa. Option identification is an essential step in the process of resolving

any conflict. Once all parties to the conflict have identified the issues under

contention, they should systematically list all options that they see available to them

for advancing their interests. Often. this is the most creative step of the mediation

process (Spangler, 2004).

Focusing on Commonalities ranked as fifth strategy utilized by the Lupong

Tagapamayapa. Working towards a solution often requires that parties both

understand their differences and yet focus on their commonalities. This essay outlines

some strategies for locating common ground (Hauss, 2003).

Creating Safe Spaces for Communication ranked as the sixth strategy

utilized by the Lupong Tagapamayapa. Due to misunderstandings, distrust,

 48

and prejudice, communication between parties is often difficult. There are various

obstacles to effective communication and ways to create a supportive climate in which

parties feel comfortable discussing their differences (Chaitin, 2003).

Conflict Assessment ranked as the seventh strategy utilized by the Lupong

Tagapamayapa. It is the initial first stage of mediation and the process of determining

what is going on, who is involved, what options for resolution might be possible, and

what procedural approaches might work (Shmueli, 2003).

Convening Processes ranked as the eighth strategy utilized by the Lupong

Tagapamayapa. The role of convening is to bring disputants to a preliminary meeting

where they will discuss the issues of a conflict and consider options for its resolution.

Tasks involved include assessing the conflict situation, identifying key stakeholders

and participants, introducing options for a resolution process, and considering ground

rules (Spangler, 2003).

Reframing ranked as the ninth strategy utilized by the Lupong

Tagapamayapa. Framing refers to the way a conflict is described or a proposal is

worded; reframing is the process of changing the way a thought is presented so that it

maintains its fundamental meaning but is more likely to support resolution efforts.

Parties can engage in reframing on their own, but it can be extremely helpful to have a

third party (mediator or facilitator) to guide the process (Spangler, 2003).

Ripeness-Promoting Strategies ranked as the tenth strategy utilized by the

Lupong Tagapamayapa. When parties involved in a dispute realized they cannot win

with further escalation, and the status quo is unacceptably damaging, mediators then
 49

convince them that negotiation is preferable to continued confrontation (Zartman,

2003).

Establishing Trust in Mediation ranked as the eleventh strategy utilized by

the Lupong Tagapamayapa. One important task for mediators is to build and maintain

the parties' trust of the mediation process, the mediators, and between the parties

themselves. When trust levels are high, parties are less defensive and more willing to

share information with other parties at the mediation table and in private sessions with

the mediator (Salem, 2003).

Costing ranked as the twelfth strategy utilized by the Lupong Tagapamayapa.

Cost-benefit analysis is a matter of analyzing the costs and benefits of different

options to determine what approach or solution to choose. Costing occurs throughout

the mediation process as parties decide whether or not to participate and choose

among settlement possibilities (Spangler, 2003).

Reality Testing ranked as thirteenth strategy utilized by the Lupong

Tagapamayapa. Sometimes parties believe that they have an alternative or option that

is better than what they will get through participating in mediation. Reality testing

involves asking questions about each party's options and convincing resistant parties

that mediation is their best option (Spangler, 2003). As shown above, it ranked

thirteenth out of 16 strategies utilized by the Lupong Tagapamayapa.

Caucus ranked as the fourteenth strategy utilized by the Lupong

Tagapamayapa. Caucuses are meetings that mediators hold separately with each side

of a dispute in order to keep mediation moving forward. They can be called by the
 50

mediator or by one of the parties to work out problems that occur during the process.

There are basic steps of a caucus and their role in effective mediation processes. There

are also downsides of caucusing (Spangler, 2003).

Shuttle Diplomacy ranked as the fifteenth strategy utilized by the Lupong

Tagapamayapa. Rather than allowing for the exchange of views and

producing compromise, direct communication between the parties may sometimes

make the situation worse. The essence of shuttle diplomacy is the use of a third party

to convey information back and forth between the parties in cases where direct

communication is likely to be counterproductive (Brahm & Burgess, 2003).

Action-Forcing Mechanisms ranked as last strategy utilized by the Lupong

Tagapamayapa. These are mechanisms to get parties to move ahead when one or more

of the parties is stalling (Spangler, 2003).

Effectiveness of Strategies Utilized in Resolving Cases and Averting Violence

Table 5 presents the effectiveness of various strategies utilized by the Lupong

Tagapamayapa in resolving disputes and averting violence. The first column indicates

the strategies, the second column indicates the weighted mean of total accumulated

frequency divided by 96 respondents, and the third column indicates the description

based on weighted mean.

 51

Table 5: Effectiveness of the Various Strategies Utilized by the Lupong

Tagapamayapa in Resolving Cases and Averting Violence.

Indicators Mean Description

1. Ground Rules 4.60 Very effective
2. Codes of Conduct for Intervenors 4.56 Very effective
3. Sequencing Strategies and Tactics 4.55 Very effective
4. Option Identification 4.52 Very effective
5. Focusing on Commonalities 4.52 Very effective
6. Creating Safe Spaces for
4.46 Very effective
Communication
7. Conflict Assessment 4.44 Very effective
8. Convening Processes 4.40 Very effective
9. Reframing 4.32 Very effective
10. Ripeness-Promoting Strategies 4.31 Very effective
11. Establishing Trust in Mediation 4.19 Effective
12. Reality Testing 4.01 Effective
13. Costing 4.02 Effective
14. Caucus 3.95 Effective
15. Shuttle Diplomacy 2.89 Moderately effective
16. Action-Forcing Mechanisms 2.54 Less Effective

The findings in Table 5 reveals the effectiveness of different strategies utilized

by the Lupong Tagapamayapa in resolving disputes and averting violence. Among the

strategies categorized as "Very Effective," Ground Rules, Codes of Conduct for

Intervenors, Sequencing Strategies and Tactic, Option Identification, Focusing on

Commonalities, Creating Safe Spaces for Communication, Conflict Assessments,

Convening Processes, Reframing, and Ripeness-Promoting Strategies emerged as

“Highly Effective” based on the respondents' perceptions, with weighted means

ranging from 4.31 to 4.60. These strategies play a crucial role in successfully resolving

disputes and preventing the escalation of violence.

Similarly, the strategies categorized as "Effective", namely Establishing Trust

in Mediation, Reality Testing, Costing, and Caucus, are rated slightly lower in
 52

effectiveness but still contribute significantly to the resolution of disputes and violence

prevention, with weighted means ranging from 3.95 to 4.19. These strategies

demonstrate their potential to facilitate positive outcomes in conflict resolution

processes.

On the other hand, Shuttle Diplomacy, categorized as "Moderately Effective"

received a weighted mean of 2.89. While it is perceived as moderately effective, there

is room for improvement in the implementation of this strategy to enhance its

effectiveness in resolving disputes and averting violence.

Finally, the strategy identified as "Less Effective" is Action-Forcing

Mechanism, with a weighted mean of 2.54. This suggests that the current approach

may need to be reassessed or modified to improve its effectiveness in resolving

disputes and preventing violence.

In conclusion, the findings highlight the varying degrees of effectiveness

among the strategies employed by the Lupong Tagapamayapa. The "Very Effective"

and "Effective" strategies hold great promise in facilitating successful dispute

resolution and violence prevention, while the "Moderately Effective" and "Less

Effective" strategies require further attention and potential revisions to enhance their

efficacy. By leveraging the most effective strategies and addressing the areas that need

improvement, the Lupong Tagapamayapa can continue to enhance their conflict

resolution processes and contribute to a more peaceful and harmonious community.