G.R. No. 45358 - Alvarez vs. Court of 1st Instance of Tayabas

On March 22, 2007, Ofelia and Rafael Angangco filed an unlawful detainer complaint with application for writ of preliminary mandatory injunction (PMI) before the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC), Branch 40, Quezon City, against spouses Murphy and Marinelle P. Chu and ATGAS Traders (complainants).
The complainants filed their answer with compulsory counterclaim on March 30, 2007.
The respondent, Judge Mario B. Capellan (Assisting Judge, MeTC Branch 40), heard the PMI application on various dates: April 11, 2007; November 20, 2007; December 11, 2007; February 12, 2008; and April 22, 2008.

The respondent set the unlawful detainer case for preliminary conference on June 24, 2008, but rescheduled it to August 26, 2008 due to the pending PMI.
In an order dated October 7, 2008, the respondent denied the PMI and reset the preliminary conference to November 25, 2008.
On November 25, 2008, the respondent referred the case to mediation, postponing the preliminary conference to December 9, 2008.
Angangco filed their pre-trial brief on November 21, 2008; the complainants did not file theirs.

During the December 9, 2008 preliminary conference, the complainants moved for consignation of checks as payment; clarificatory hearings set for January 23 and 30, 2009.
The preliminary conference was finally held on February 3, 2009.
Complainants moved to dismiss on grounds of Angangcos’ failure to comply with barangay conciliation and non-joinder of co-owners, and questioned MeTC’s jurisdiction for PMI issuance.
Angangcos orally moved to declare complainants in default for failure to file pre-trial brief.

On February 26, 2009, the respondent issued a joint order submitting the case for decision based on facts in the complaint.
The complainants moved for reconsideration, which the respondent denied.
Subsequently, the complainants filed an administrative complaint against the respondent for gross ignorance of the law, partiality, and grave abuse of discretion, citing, among other things, lack of notice of preliminary conference, delay in setting the conference, and failure to dismiss the complaint for plaintiffs’ non-appearance at mediation.
The respondent inhibited himself from the case on September 8, 2009.

The respondent argued there was no requirement under applicable rules to issue a separate notice for the preliminary conference beyond the order setting it.
He maintained that both parties received or had knowledge of the October 7, 2008 order setting the November 25, 2008 preliminary conference.
He disputed the applicability of Supreme Court A.M. No. 01-2-04 to the unlawful detainer case, as it governs intra-corporate controversies.
He denied bias and explained his actions, including that he could not dismiss the complaint for Angangcos’ non-appearance at mediation since he had no knowledge thereof at the time.
The respondent prayed for dismissal of the administrative complaint, alleging harassment and the complainants’ own negligence.

OCA found no due process violation in the absence of a formal notice, as parties received the order setting the conference and were present at reschedulings.
OCA agreed that A.M. No. 01-2-04 is inapplicable to ejectment cases.
OCA held that the respondent did not rule on the oral motion declaring complainants in default but submitted the case for decision because of failure to file pre-trial brief, citing relevant rules.
OCA found merit in the complainants’ allegation of undue delay in holding the preliminary conference, which was set almost one year after the last answer was filed and reset multiple times, violating the 1991 Revised Rules on Summary Procedure and Canon 1 of the Code of Judicial Conduct.
OCA recommended reprimand for the respondent, with stern warning for repeated offenses.

The case was redocketed as a regular administrative case and parties agreed to submit the case for decision.

Whether the respondent committed gross ignorance of the law, partiality, or grave abuse of discretion in:

Failing to issue a formal notice of preliminary conference.
Entertaining the oral motion to declare complainants in default despite its prohibition in unlawful detainer cases.
Delaying the holding of the preliminary conference, thus delaying the resolution of the unlawful detainer case.
Failing to dismiss the unlawful detainer complaint for the plaintiffs’ alleged non-appearance at mediation.
Evidencing bias or partiality in handling the unlawful detainer case.

Whether the respondent’s administrative liability is warranted for undue delay or other violations.

Whether Supreme Court A.M. No. 01-2-04, governing intra-corporate controversies, applies suppletorily to unlawful detainer cases.