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.

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

Background of the Case

The case stems from a verified Complaint-Affidavit submitted by Susan R. Elgar on January 17, 2013, alleging that Judge Soliman M. Santos, Jr. was guilty of gross ignorance of the law and various violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct and Canons of Judicial Ethics. The allegations were based on events occurring in Special Proceedings No. 1870 concerning the Petition for the Allowance of a Deed of Donation Mortis Causa by the late Wenceslao Elgar.

Initial Findings

In the Decision dated February 4, 2020, the Court found Judge Santos administratively liable for multiple infractions, including failure to refer the case to the Philippine Mediation Center (PMC), undue pressure on parties to amicably settle through improper means, undue delays during the preliminary conference, issuing an Extended Order that unduly castigated the complainant's counsel, and improperly allowing the oppositor to submit a pre-trial brief despite its mandatory nature. The total fines imposed amounted to P78,000.00, with a stern warning for future conduct.

Motion for Partial Reconsideration

In his Motion for Partial Reconsideration, Judge Santos requested a reversal of his guilt findings and fines regarding the first, fourth, and fifth offenses, sought reduction of the penalty for the second offense, advocated for actions against the complainant's counsel, and requested the removal of the February 4 Decision from the Supreme Court website pending resolution of his motion.

Court's Ruling on the Motion

Upon review, the Court partly granted the Motion for Partial Reconsideration. The findings of violation related to the failure to refer the case to the PMC remained unchanged, affirming the requirement of mediation for the case type at hand. The Court also dismissed Judge Santos's argument regarding lack of notice about the failure to refer to the PMC, indicating that the infraction was evident from the case submissions.

Respondent's Misconduct

The Court upheld its determination concerning the Extended Order where Judge Santos improperly chastised the complainant's counsel. The Court deemed this action as exceeding the appropriate authority and lacking propriety. However, the Court agreed to modify its original finding regarding the oppositor's pre-trial brief submission by reducing the administrative penalty from a charge of gross ignorance of the law to a mere violation of Supreme Court rules which did not involve bad faith.

A.M. No. 03-10-01-SC Applicability

Judge Santos invoked A.M. No. 03-10-01-SC in asserting that the complaint against him was unfounded. However, the Court found this resolution inapplicable, as the evidence presented warranted disciplinary action against him, indicating that the complaint was neither baseless nor frivolous.

Supreme Court Website Ruling

The Court denied Judge Santos's request to remove its February 4 Decision from the Supreme Court website, clarifying that there exists no stipulation requiring a hold on publication until after ruling on a motion for reconsideration, thus affirming the transparency obligations of the judicial process.

Penalties Imposed

The Court re-evaluated

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.