Case Digest (A.M. No. MTJ-16-1880)
Facts:
Susan R. Elgar v. Judge Soliman M. Santos, Jr., A.M. No. MTJ-16-1880 [Formerly OCA IPI No. 13-2565-MTJ], April 27, 2021, the Supreme Court En Banc, Inting, J., writing for the Court.On January 17, 2013, Susan R. Elgar filed a verified Complaint‑Affidavit against Judge Soliman M. Santos, Jr. (then Presiding Judge, Municipal Circuit Trial Court, Nabua‑Bato, Camarines Sur), charging him with gross ignorance of the law and violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct arising from Special Proceedings No. 1870, “In Re: Petition for the Allowance of the Deed of Donation Mortis Causa by the Late Wenceslao Elgar.” The complaint narrated several alleged improprieties during the handling of that petition, including failure to refer the case to mediation, undue pressure on the parties to settle, undue delay in terminating the preliminary conference, issuance of an unduly castigating Extended Order after withdrawal of the petition, and making submission of a pre‑trial brief optional.
The Court (appearing as the Supreme Court; disciplinary proceedings by the Office of the Court Administrator) issued a Decision dated February 4, 2020 finding respondent administratively liable for multiple infractions and imposing aggregate fines of P78,000.00 for: failure to refer to the Philippine Mediation Center (PMC) under A.M. No. 01-10-5-SC-PHILJA; pressing parties to settle by improper means; undue delay in terminating the preliminary conference; issuance of an Extended Order that unduly castigated complainant’s counsel; and giving the oppositor the option to submit a pre‑trial brief contrary to the mandatory rule in Section 6, Rule 18 of the Rules of Court.
Respondent filed a Motion for Partial Reconsideration on August 28, 2020 asking, inter alia, that the findings and fines for the first, fourth, and fifth offenses be reversed; that fines be reduced (proposing a total of P24,000.00); that A.M. No. 03-10-01-SC (measures to protect judges from baseless complaints) be applied against complainant’s counsel as the real part...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Should the Court reverse its findings that respondent failed to refer the case to the Philippine Mediation Center and that he issued the Extended Order unduly castigating complainant’s counsel?
- Should the Court reconsider its finding that respondent committed gross ignorance of the law by giving the oppositor the option of submitting a pre‑trial brief and adjust the charge and penalty accordingly?
- Should A.M. No. 03-10-01-SC be applied to sanction complainant’s counsel as the real party in interest?
- Should the February 4, 2020 Decision be removed from the Supreme Court website pending resolution of the Motion for Partial Reconsideration...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)