Title
Elgar vs. Santos, Jr.
Case
A.M. No. MTJ-16-1880
Decision Date
Apr 27, 2021
A judge was fined P20,000 for procedural violations, misconduct, and undue delay in a property dispute case, with penalties reduced due to lack of bad faith.
fines
stern warning
directives and circulars

Case Summary (A.M. No. MTJ-16-1880)

Factual Background

The complaint arose from Special Proceedings No. 1870 entitled “In Re: Petition for the Allowance of the Deed of Donation Mortis Causa by the Late Wenceslao Elgar,” a settlement of estate matter referable to mediation under A.M. No. 01-10-5-SC-PHILJA. The complainant alleged that Judge Soliman M. Santos, Jr. exceeded judicial propriety by pressing the parties to settle through means that included texting complainant’s counsel, conducting an ex parte meeting with complainant and her counsel inside his chambers, and persuading the oppositor to settle during an accidental meeting in Naga City. The complaint also alleged that respondent unduly delayed termination of the preliminary conference, issued an Extended Order dated December 19, 2012 that castigated complainant’s counsel after the petition’s withdrawal, and made the oppositor’s filing of a pre-trial brief optional contrary to the mandatory requirement in Section 6, Rule 18 of the Rules of Court.

Administrative Complaint and Initial Decision

A verified Complaint-Affidavit by Susan R. Elgar was filed on January 17, 2013. In its Decision dated February 4, 2020, the Court found Judge Soliman M. Santos, Jr. administratively liable for multiple infractions: failure to refer the case to the Philippine Mediation Center as required by A.M. No. 01-10-5-SC-PHILJA; pressing the parties to settle by means exceeding propriety; causing undue delay in terminating the preliminary conference amounting to gross inefficiency; issuing the December 19, 2012 Extended Order that unduly castigated complainant’s counsel after withdrawal of the petition; and giving the oppositor the option of submitting a pre-trial brief in contravention of Section 6, Rule 18, Rules of Court. The Court imposed fines totaling P78,000.00: P12,000 for failure to refer to the PMC; P20,000 for pressing the parties; P12,000 for undue delay; P12,000 for the Extended Order; and P22,000 for making the pre-trial brief optional. The Decision ordered that a copy be attached to respondent’s personal record.

Motion for Partial Reconsideration

On August 28, 2020, Judge Soliman M. Santos, Jr. filed a Motion for Partial Reconsideration. He asked the Court to reverse the findings and fines for the first, fourth, and fifth offenses; to reduce the fine for the second offense to P12,000 and retain the third offense fine of P12,000, yielding a proposed total of P24,000; to apply A.M. No. 03-10-01-SC against complainant’s counsel as the alleged real party-in-interest; to remove the Decision dated February 4, 2020 from the Supreme Court website pending resolution of the motion; and to grant other just relief.

Issues Presented

The principal issue was whether the Court should reconsider its Decision of February 4, 2020 that found respondent guilty of violations of Supreme Court rules, directives, and circulars, simple misconduct, gross inefficiency or undue delay, and gross ignorance of the law, and that imposed fines totaling P78,000.00. Subsidiary issues included the applicability of A.M. No. 03-10-01-SC to the complainant’s counsel and whether the Decision should be removed from the Court’s website pending reconsideration.

The Court’s Ruling on Failure to Refer to the PMC

The Court affirmed its finding that respondent violated Supreme Court rules by failing to refer the case to the Philippine Mediation Center under A.M. No. 01-10-5-SC-PHILJA. The Court reasoned that Special Proceedings No. 1870 was a mediatable case within the coverage of that administrative matter. The Court rejected respondent’s contention that the failure-to-refer charge was not adequately alleged in the Complaint-Affidavit. The Court explained that the omission was evident from the parties’ own submissions in the administrative record, and that the Court, exercising disciplinary power over judges, could properly penalize disregard of mandatory mediation rules.

The Court’s Ruling on the Extended Order and Pressing the Parties

The Court sustained its finding that respondent exceeded the bounds of propriety in issuing the Extended Order dated December 19, 2012 that unduly castigated complainant’s counsel after the petition’s withdrawal. The Court held that respondent should have refrained from using his judicial position to browbeat counsel and that, having granted the withdrawal, there was no occasion to issue the Extended Order. The Court also found that respondent pressed the parties to enter an amicable settlement by improper means, which constituted conduct exceeding judicial propriety.

The Court’s Reconsideration of the Pre-Trial Brief Finding

The Court reconsidered and modified its prior characterization of respondent’s act of giving the oppositor the option to submit a pre-trial brief. The Court reduced the charge from gross ignorance of the law to a violation of Supreme Court rules, directives, and circulars. The Court acknowledged that respondent’s Order dated August 7, 2012 made the filing optional and that such relaxation contravened Section 6, Rule 18, Rules of Court. Nevertheless, the Court observed that respondent had previously issued Orders on November 3, 2010 and December 3, 2010 directing the oppositor to submit a pre-trial brief and had even fined the oppositor’s counsel for noncompliance. The Court concluded that respondent was cognizant of the mandatory nature of the pre-trial brief, and that his decision to relax the rule in the circumstances did not constitute gross ignorance of the law, though it remained a violation of rules.

Application of A.M. No. 03-10-01-SC and Request to Remove Decision from Website

The Court denied respondent’s request to invoke A.M. No. 03-10-01-SC against complainant’s counsel. The Court held that the administrative complaint was not clearly unfounded or baseless given the findings of violations in the record. The Court likewise denied the request to remove the Decision from the Supreme Court website. The Court cited Sections 2, 3, and 4(b), Rule 14 of the Internal Rules of the Supreme Court to show that there is no provision requiring the Court to withhold dissemination of a promulgated decision pending resolution of a motion for reconsideration.

Mitigation, Analogous Authority, and Penalty Modification

The Court reconsidered the aggregate penalty in light of mitigating circumstances. The Court noted prec

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.

About Privacy Terms