Case Summary (A.M. No. MTJ-99-1226)
Pleadings and Court Actions in the Underlying Ejectment Case
Lucas alleged that respondent issued an Order dated February 26, 1997 which granted the plaintiffs motion for reconsideration of an earlier Order dated January 13, 1997 that had dismissed the ejectment case for the failure of the plaintiff and her counsel to appear at the preliminary conference. Lucas pointed to the governing procedural regime for ejectment matters under the Rules on Summary Procedure, and specifically invoked Section 19 (c), which prohibits certain pleadings and motions, including a “motion for new trial, or for reconsideration of a judgment, or for reopening of trial.”
Lucas claimed that respondent violated this prohibition when she granted the motion for reconsideration, notwithstanding that respondent had acknowledged in open court that the case was governed by the Rules on Summary Procedure. Lucas further alleged that the grant of reconsideration was done “out of malice, partiality and with intent to cause an injury,” and urged the Court to discipline the judge through the doctrine of IPSA LOQUITOR.
Administrative Complaint and Respondent’s Admission
After respondent judge was required to comment on the administrative complaint on June 18, 1997, she filed her Comment dated September 16, 1997. Respondent admitted that she granted the motion for reconsideration even if it was a prohibited motion in an ejectment case. She justified her action by asserting that it was granted “in the interest of justice.”
Respondent explained that the questioned Order dated January 13, 1997 dismissed the ejectment case because neither the plaintiff nor her counsel appeared at the preliminary conference, and that Atty. Jose Suing had been empowered by Special Power of Attorney to appear. She narrated that Atty. Suing filed a motion for reconsideration on January 17, 1997 after learning of the dismissal, alleging that he failed to appear due to sudden, excruciating stomach pain. Respondent emphasized that, despite the defendant’s objection that a motion for reconsideration was a prohibited pleading under the summary procedure rule, she still granted the motion.
Respondent also argued that the rule should not operate as a rigid “straight jacket,” and that judges should discern circumstances that could otherwise result in miscarriage of justice. She cited, by way of justification, Section 5 (g) of Rule 135, as an inherent power allowing the Court to “amend and control its process and orders so as to make them conformable to law and justice.” She additionally contended that the order of dismissal had not attained finality as far as the defendant was concerned.
Referral to the Office of the Court Administrator and Its Recommendation
The complaint and the Comment were referred to the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) for evaluation, report, and recommendation after the case was docketed as an administrative matter.
On August 25, 1997, the OCA submitted a Memorandum making findings adverse to respondent. The OCA concluded that respondent abused her discretion in granting the motion for reconsideration, reasoning that respondent knew that a motion for reconsideration of a judgment was prohibited in an ejectment case covered by the summary procedure. The OCA held that a judge’s intention to do justice could not excuse liability, and that respondent should have denied the motion because the plaintiff had other remedies such as appeal.
The OCA recommended that respondent be fined PHP 2,000.00 for grave abuse of discretion.
The Court’s Issue and Governing Rule on Prohibited Motions
In its disposition, the Court focused on the scope of Section 19 (c) of the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure. The Court reiterated that, as a rule, a motion for reconsideration is a prohibited pleading under Section 19. It quoted the rule’s prohibition, including a motion for reconsideration of a judgment.
However, the Court qualified the prohibition by reference to controlling jurisprudence. It relied on the doctrinal statement that the prohibited motion contemplated by Section 15 (c) of the earlier Rules and later Section 19 (c) effective November 15, 1991 referred specifically to a motion that seeks reconsideration of the judgment rendered after trial on the merits. The Court invoked Joven v. Court of Appeals, 212 SCRA 700, 707-708 (1992) for this limitation, explaining that the prohibition applies to reconsideration of a judgment after trial on the merits, not to other kinds of dismissals.
Legal Reasoning: Nature of the Dismissal Order and Non-Applicability of the Prohibition
Applying the rule as construed in Joven, the Court characterized respondent’s Order dated January 13, 1997 dismissing the ejectment case due to failure of a party to appear at the preliminary conference as “obviously not a judgment on the merits after trial of the case.” It reasoned that, because the dismissal order was not a merits adjudication reached after trial, the motion for reconsideration of such an order did not fall within the prohibited pleading contemplated under Section 19 (c) of the Revised Rules on Summary Proc
...continue reading
Case Syllabus (A.M. No. MTJ-99-1226)
- The case arose from an administrative complaint filed by Gloria Lucas against Judge Amelia A. Fabros of the Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch 9, Manila, for Gross Ignorance of the Law and Grave Abuse of Discretion.
- The complaint targeted the respondent judge’s action in Civil Case No. 151248 entitled “Editha F. Gacad, represented by Elenita F. Castelo vs. Gloria Lucas, for Ejectment.”
- The administrative matter was docketed and referred to the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) for evaluation, report, and recommendation.
- The Supreme Court ultimately dismissed the complaint.
Parties and Procedural Posture
- Gloria Lucas acted as the complainant and the defendant in the ejectment case.
- Judge Amelia A. Fabros acted as the respondent and presiding judge in the Metropolitan Trial Court.
- The complaint was supported by an allegation of procedural error and sought administrative discipline.
- The respondent was required to comment on the complaint on June 18, 1997.
- The OCA submitted its findings and recommendation after perusal of the records.
- The Supreme Court resolved the administrative complaint by assessing whether the questioned act constituted gross ignorance of the law or grave abuse of discretion.
Key Factual Allegations
- The complainant alleged that the respondent issued an Order dated February 26, 1997 granting the plaintiffs Motion for Reconsideration of an earlier Order dated January 13, 1997.
- The earlier Order dated January 13, 1997 dismissed the ejectment case for failure of the plaintiff and her counsel to appear at the preliminary conference.
- The complainant asserted that under Section 19(c) of the Rules on Summary Procedure, a motion for reconsideration is a prohibited pleading in cases covered by the rule.
- The complainant further alleged that the respondent granted the motion despite knowing that the case was governed by the Rules on Summary Procedure.
- The complainant characterized the challenged order as being motivated by malice, partiality, and intent to cause injury.
- The complaint invoked the doctrine of IPSA LOQUITUR to support judicial discipline.
- In her Comment dated September 16, 1997, the respondent admitted that she granted the motion for reconsideration even if it was prohibited in an ejectment case, and she justified the act as being in the interest of justice.
- The respondent explained that counsel, Atty. Jose Suing, failed to appear at the preliminary conference due to sudden excruciating stomach pain, and that a call to the court was eventually received only after dismissal.
- The respondent denied that the act was capricious and stated that the court should be able to perceive circumstances that might otherwise lead to a miscarriage of justice.
Administrative Proceedings and OCA Report
- The OCA was tasked to evaluate the records and submit findings and recommendations.
- The OCA concluded that the respondent judge abused her discretion in granting the motion for reconsideration.
- The OCA reasoned that the respondent judge acknowledged that she knew the motion for reconsideration was prohibited, yet she granted it for reasons she considered meritorious and in the interest of justice.
- The OCA stressed that a court’s first duty was to apply the law, and that when the law was clear and unambiguous, there was no room for interpretation.
- The OCA recommended a fine of P2,000.00 for grave abuse of discretion.
- The Supreme Court later found the OCA recommendation without factual and legal basis.