Case Summary (A.M. No. MTJ-11-1779)
Background and Procedural History of the Case
The unlawful detainer complaint was filed on March 22, 2007. The respondents filed their answer on March 30, 2007 with a compulsory counterclaim. The respondent judge conducted hearings for an application for a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction (PMI) on multiple dates between April 2007 and April 2008. The unlawful detainer case was initially set for preliminary conference on June 24, 2008 but was postponed several times due to pending matters, eventually taking place on February 3, 2009. Critical to the procedural controversy, the complainants failed to file a pre-trial brief, while the plaintiffs filed theirs on November 21, 2008. After the complainants’ failure, the respondent issued an order on February 26, 2009 submitting the case for decision based on the complaint’s allegations, effectively ruling against the complainants. The complainants filed for reconsideration, which was denied, leading to the administrative complaint against the respondent judge.
Complainants’ Allegations Against the Respondent
The complainants alleged that the respondent committed gross ignorance of the law and partiality, citing that no formal notice of the preliminary conference was issued — as mandatory under procedural rules — thereby violating their due process rights. They argued that the judge wrongly entertained an oral motion to declare them in default despite this being a prohibited pleading in summary procedure cases. They further accused the respondent of unjustified delays in setting the preliminary conference and failing to dismiss the complaint due to the plaintiffs’ failure to personally appear at mediation proceedings. These actions were argued to demonstrate bias in favor of the plaintiffs.
Respondent’s Defense and Counter-Charge
Judge Capellan asserted that under the pertinent rules, no formal notice for the preliminary conference was required beyond the order setting the conference date, which was duly served to both parties. The issuance of an additional notice would have been superfluous. The respondent contended that Supreme Court A.M. No. 01-2-04, which the complainants relied upon to allege procedural violations, applied only to intra-corporate controversies and was not applicable to unlawful detainer cases. Regarding dismissal based on mediation non-appearance, the judge explained he was not informed of the plaintiffs’ absence during the mediation since their counsel attended authorized to settle, thus negating grounds for dismissal. The respondent maintained that the administrative complaint was an effort by the complainants to harass the court and cover their procedural negligence.
Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) Findings and Recommendations
The OCA found no substantial merit in several allegations. First, the complainants were deemed duly notified of the preliminary conference through the judge’s order dated October 7, 2008, and their attendance at subsequent hearings evidenced actual notice. It was concluded that their failure to file a pre-trial brief was negligent rather than a result of procedural irregularity. Second, the OCA agreed that Supreme Court A.M. No. 01-2-04 was inapplicable to the case, which was not an intra-corporate controversy. Third, the OCA explained that the judge did not act upon the oral motion to declare the complainants in default but based his order of submission for decision on their failure to file a required pre-trial brief, citing relevant provisions of Rules 18 and 70 of the Rules of Court. However, the OCA found that the respondent violated Section 7 of the 1991 Revised Rules on Summary Procedure by unduly delaying the preliminary conference beyond the 30-day period following the filing of the answer, pointing also to ethical obligations under Canon 1, Rule 1.02 of the Code of Judicial Conduct to avoid delay. Consequently, the OCA recommended that the complaint be treated as a regular administrative case and the judge be reprimanded for undue delay with a warning against recurrence.
Supreme Court’s Ruling on the Administrative Complaint
The Supreme Court adopted the OCA’s findings, reaffirming that no breach in procedure occurred through the absence of a separate notice for the November 25, 2008 preliminary conference, as the judge’s order already sufficed. It clarified that the judge’s submission of the case for decision was based on the complainants’ failure to file a pre-trial brief and not on a prohibited motion to declare them in default. The Court further held that Supreme Court A.M. No. 01-2-04 cannot be applied to unlawful detainer cases and that the failure of plaintiffs to personally appear at mediation did not warrant dismissal, citing established jurisprudence permitting representation by authorized counsel.
However, the Court reprimanded Judge Capellan for undue delay, noting the unnecessary postponements and resets of preliminary conference dates that contravened the 30-day requirement under Section 7, Rule 70 of the 1991 Revised Rules on Summary Procedure, as well as the ethical duty to administer justice without delay. Noting that this was a repeated offense, the Court imposed the maximum fine of Twenty Thousand Pesos (P20,000.00) under the Rules of Court as amended, and issued a stern warning that future violations would invoke harsher penalties.
Legal Principles and Applicable Rules
- Due Process and Notice: The issuance of a formal notice for preliminary conference is not mandatory if an order setting the conference date is served to parties. Actual knowledge suffices for due process.
- Prohibited Pleadings: Motions to declare a party in default are prohibited in unlawful detainer cases under Section 1
Case Syllabus (A.M. No. MTJ-11-1779)
Case Background and Initial Complaints
- The spouses Murphy and Marinelle P. Chu together with their business entity, ATGAS Traders, filed a verified administrative complaint dated September 14, 2009 against Hon. Mario B. Capellan, Assisting Judge of the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC), Branch 40, Quezon City.
- The complaint charged Judge Capellan with gross ignorance of the law, partiality, and grave abuse of discretion related to his administration of an unlawful detainer case filed by Ofelia and Rafael Angangco on March 22, 2007.
- The unlawful detainer complaint included an application for a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction (PMI) against the complainants.
- The complainants filed an answer with a compulsory counterclaim on March 30, 2007.
- The respondent presided over multiple hearings between April 11, 2007, and April 22, 2008, for the writ of PMI and later scheduled preliminary conferences, which underwent repeated rescheduling from June 24, 2008, to February 3, 2009.
- Key procedural events included the respondent denying the PMI on October 7, 2008, referral of the case to mediation, and the complainants’ failure to file a pre-trial brief despite notice and multiple opportunities.
- During the February 3, 2009 preliminary conference, the complainants moved to dismiss the complaint on grounds of non-compliance with barangay conciliation procedures and alleged lack of jurisdiction to issue the writ of PMI, while the plaintiffs moved orally to declare the complainants in default for failure to file a pre-trial brief.
- Respondent subsequently issued a joint order on February 26, 2009 submitting the case for decision based on the facts alleged in the complaint.
- Complainants filed a motion for reconsideration which was denied, prompting the filing of the administrative complaint and a motion for the respondent’s inhibition, which he granted on September 8, 2009.
Allegations Against the Respondent
- Complainants alleged the respondent violated their right to due process by failing to issue a notice for the preliminary conference, which they argued was mandatory under Section 2, Rule 11 of Supreme Court A.M. No. 01-2-04.
- They also contended the respondent improperly entertained an oral motion to declare them in default.
- Further allegations included undue delay in setting the preliminary conference and failure to dismiss the complaint despite the absence of plaintiffs in mediation.
- Such actions, contended complainants, manifested bias, partiality, and grave abuse of discretion on the part of Judge Capellan.
Respondent’s Defense and Counter-Charge
- Judge Capellan asserted no requirement existed under the 1991 Revised Rules on Summary Procedure or the Rules of Court for issuing a separate notice of preliminary conference beyond the order setting the conference.
- He maintained both parties were adequately informed through his order dated October 7, 2008, rendering a separate notice unnecessary and redundant.
- The respondent argued the cited Supreme Court A.M. No. 01-2-04 was inapplicable as it pertained exclusively to intra-corporate controversies and not ejectment cases.
- On the failure to dismiss case despite plaintiffs’ absence in mediation, he claimed lack of knowledge at the time since he was only informed after session concluded.
- The respondent stressed the complainants’ active mediation participation contradicte