Case Digest (G.R. No. L-18924)
Facts:
Susan R. Elgar v. Judge Soliman M. Santos, Jr., A.M. No. MTJ-16-1880 [Formerly OCA IPI No. 13-2565-MTJ], February 04, 2020, the Supreme Court En Banc, Inting, J., writing for the Court. The complaint arose from Special Proceedings No. 1870 (In Re: Petition for the Allowance of the Deed of Donation Mortis Causa by the Late Wenceslao Elgar) filed by Susan R. Elgar (complainant) against Judge Soliman M. Santos, Jr. (respondent) in his capacity as Presiding Judge of the Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC), Nabua‑Bato, Camarines Sur.
Complainant alleged that her deceased husband executed a Deed of Donation Mortis Causa on August 18, 1999 conveying two agricultural parcels to her, and she filed the petition for allowance on January 7, 2010. After an initial finding of sufficiency by Acting Presiding Judge Bernhard B. Beltran, Judge Santos assumed the regular presiding judge role. On August 19, 2010 the decedent’s son, Wenceslao V. Elgar, Jr. (oppositor), opposed the petition, and Judge Santos repeatedly reset conferences and issued orders urging the parties to attempt amicable settlement, directing them to submit position papers and proposed settlement terms.
Complainant recounts numerous interventions by Judge Santos: persistent text messages to her counsel urging settlement, ex parte conferences in his chambers, urging the bringing of absentees (heirs residing in the USA) to the court, and a pattern of postponements and resets spanning from October 2010 through late 2012. Oppositor filed a motion for recusal; Judge Santos denied it. After prolonged mediation-type efforts and delays, complainant moved to withdraw the petition; Judge Santos granted withdrawal on December 11, 2012 but issued an Extended Order dated December 19, 2012 that publicly castigated complainant’s counsel.
Judge Santos answered that his conduct aimed to secure an amicable settlement in furtherance of judicial dispute resolution, invoked A.M. No. 03-1-09-SC and other guidelines, admitted to some text messaging and meetings but denied undue impropriety, and defended his conduct in conducting or directing pre‑trial processes, including reliance on Section 2, Rule 72 of the Rules of Court to apply ordinary pre‑trial rules to special proceedings where practicable.
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 of the Code of Judicial Conduct amounting to simple misconduct in part, but it exonerated him of several acts that were judicial in nature (e.g., advising parties to bring foreign‑resident heirs, not limiting inquiry to the donated lots, ordering ...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did Judge Santos commit administrative liability for acts that were essentially judicial in nature (e.g., advising parties to bring foreign‑resident heirs, expanding the scope of inquiry, and ordering pre‑trial in a special proceeding)?
- Was Judge Santos required to refer Special Proceedings No. 1870 to the Philippine Mediation Center under A.M. No. 01-10-5-SC‑PHILJA, and did his failure to do so constitute an administrative offense?
- Did Judge Santos’ conduct in pressing the parties to settle (text messages, ex parte meetings, personal persuasion) and his issuance of the Extended Order unduly cast doubt on his impartiality and integrity and thus violate Canon 2 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct?
- Did Judge Santos’ handling of the pre‑trial (allowing the oppositor the optional filing of a pre‑trial brief and treating prior submissions as a pre‑trial brief) amount to gross ignorance of the law and procedure under Rule 18, Secs. 5–6? ...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)