Case Digest (A.M. No. MTJ-99-1226)
Facts:
Gloria Lucas v. Judge Amelia A. Fabros, A.M. No. MTJ-99-1226, January 31, 2000, Supreme Court Second Division, Quisumbing, J., writing for the Court. Complainant Gloria Lucas filed a verified administrative complaint (May 20, 1997) charging respondent Judge Amelia A. Fabros of the Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch 9, Manila, with gross ignorance of the law and grave abuse of discretion in connection with Civil Case No. 151248, entitled Editha F. Gacad, represented by Elenita F. Castelo v. Gloria Lucas, an ejectment case.The ejectment case had been the subject of an Order dated January 13, 1997 dismissing the complaint for failure of the plaintiff and her counsel to appear at the preliminary conference. On January 17, 1997, the plaintiff's counsel, Atty. Jose Suing, filed a Motion for Reconsideration (stating sudden illness as cause for non-appearance). Judge Fabros granted that motion by an Order dated February 26, 1997. Complainant Lucas alleged that under Section 19(c) of the Rules on Summary Procedure a motion for reconsideration is a prohibited pleading in ejectment cases and that the judge’s grant of the motion therefore constituted gross ignorance of the law and grave abuse of discretion.
Respondent Judge Fabros, in her Comment (September 16, 1997), admitted she granted the motion despite knowing it was a prohibited pleading but defended the act as done in the interest of justice to avoid miscarriage given counsel’s asserted sudden illness; she also invoked the Court’s inherent power under Section 5(g) of Rule 135 to control process so as to conform orders to law and justice. The complaint and comment were referred to the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) for report and recommendation. The OCA, in a memorandum dated August 25, 1997, found that Judge Fabros abused her discretion in granting the motion and recommended a fine of P2,000.00 for grave abuse of discretion.
...(Pro-only)Issues:
- Whether respondent Judge Amelia A. Fabros is guilty of gross ignorance of the law and grave abuse of discretion for granting the Motion for Reconsideration in the ejectment case.
- Whether a motion for reconsideration is a prohibited pleading under Section 19(c) of the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure when it seeks reconsideration of an order of dismissal for failure to appear at the preliminary conference (i.e., whether suc...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)