A.M. No. MTJ-16-1880 - Elgar vs. Santos, Jr.

The administrative complaint originated from Susan R. Elgar’s verified Complaint-Affidavit filed on January 17, 2013, against Judge Soliman M. Santos, Jr., who was then the Presiding Judge of the Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) in Nabua-Bato, Camarines Sur.
Complainant alleged that her deceased husband executed a Deed of Donation Mortis Causa on August 18, 1999, donating two parcels of agricultural land to her, which later became the subject of Special Proceedings No. 1870.
The petition for the allowance of the Deed of Donation Mortis Causa was filed on January 7, 2010, and initially handled by Acting Presiding Judge Bernhard B. Beltran before Judge Santos assumed the regular post.

Soon after assuming the post, Judge Santos began a series of procedural interventions, including:

Issuing orders to reset the preliminary conferences to encourage an amicable settlement between the parties.
Directing the oppositor, Wenceslao V. Elgar, Jr., to bring other heirs (including co-heirs residing abroad) before the court.
Requiring additional submissions such as pre-trial briefs and other documents not originally part of the petition.

Judge Santos actively promoted amicable settlement strategies by using various means:

Posting notices promoting settlement in visible locations in the court and staff areas.
Sending text messages to complainant’s counsel, urging a settlement.
Holding meetings in his chambers with either or both parties—even on the day of hearings—to discuss settlement options.

Numerous resettings of the preliminary conference occurred between October 2010 to March 2012 due to:

Absences of counsel or parties.
Proposals by Judge Santos to accommodate all heirs and align the matter with a broader estate issue.
Judge Santos’ insistence on discussing settlement options instead of focusing solely on the validity of the deed.

After several interventions and attempts to mediate the dispute, including orders for pre-trial hearings and even issuing a prefabricated pre-trial order, the case endured prolonged delay.
On December 11, 2012, feeling hopeless over the bench’s persistent mediation efforts, the complainant moved to withdraw her petition.
Eight days later, Judge Santos issued an Extended Order (dated December 19, 2012) castigating complainant’s counsel and casting aspersions on her character, further compounding the controversy.

Gross ignorance of the law in handling special proceedings.
Violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct and Canons of Judicial Ethics by incessantly pushing for an amicable settlement.

In his Comment, Judge Santos defended his mediation efforts as conforming with existing administrative matters (A.M. No. 03-1-09-SC) and argued that his proactive involvement was meant to expedite settlement without malice.
The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) in its Report (dated September 17, 2015) found Judge Santos guilty of gross ignorance of the law and violations amounting to simple misconduct in relation to:

The Court partially adopted the OCA’s findings, affirming that certain acts by Judge Santos were judicial in nature and did not warrant administrative liability.
However, the Court concluded that Judge Santos committed acts amounting to:

Violations of mediation rules (failure to refer the case to the Philippine Mediation Center per A.M. No. 01-10-5-SC-PHILJA).
Overbearing and improper conduct in persuading the parties toward settlement (including ex parte interactions and undue pressure via texts).
Unjustified delay in the case progression, constituting gross inefficiency.
Issuance of a pre-trial order that improperly allowed the oppositor to submit a pre-trial brief, contravening the mandatory filing requirements of Section 6, Rule 18, of the Rules of Court.

The Court imposed a series of monetary fines on Judge Santos for the various offenses, accompanied by a stern warning against future similar conduct.

Whether Judge Santos’ persistent push for an amicable settlement, including the use of text messages and ex parte meetings, breached the ethical norms and violated the Code of Judicial Conduct and Canons of Judicial Ethics.
Whether his approach, perceived as overbearing and prejudicial, compromised the impartiality required in judicial proceedings.

Whether Judge Santos erred by not referring a mediatable case to the Philippine Mediation Center in accordance with A.M. No. 01-10-5-SC-PHILJA despite indications that amicable settlement was possible.
Whether his issuance of a pre-trial order giving the oppositor the option to submit a pre-trial brief contravened the mandatory requirements under Section 6, Rule 18, of the Rules of Court, and thus constituted gross ignorance of the law.

Whether the delays in terminating the preliminary conference were attributable solely to Judge Santos’ mediation efforts or were exacerbated by the parties’ own actions.
Whether such delays amount to gross inefficiency and a violation of established procedural rules intended to expedite case disposition.

Whether the Extended Order castigating complainant’s counsel—issued after the petition had been withdrawn—was justified or exceeded the approved bounds of judicial conduct and propriety.
Whether the language and content of the Extended Order undermined public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.

Whether the fines imposed on Judge Santos for multiple offenses appropriately reflect the gravity of his misconduct.
How the severity of each offense (ranging from simple misconduct to gross ignorance of the law) should be balanced in determining the total penalty.