7 (1) | Lawsuit | Motion In United States Law

Please download to get full document.

View again

of 6
All materials on our website are shared by users. If you have any questions about copyright issues, please report us to resolve them. We are always happy to assist you.
Information Report
Category:

Documents

Published:

Views: 9 | Pages: 6

Extension: DOCX | Download: 0

Share
Related documents
Description
h
Transcript
  Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila SECOND DIVISIONA.M. No. MTJ-11-1779 July 16, 2012 (fo! ly A.M. OCA IPI No. 09-2191-MTJ#MURP$% C$U&AT'AS TRADERS )* MARINE++E P. C$U, Complainants, vs. $ON. MARIO . CAPE++AN, A/) Ju* , M /ool/) Tl Cou/ (M TC#, )3 40, 5u o) C/y,  Respondent.D E C I S I O N RION, J.: In a verified complaint dated September !, ##$ filed before the Office of the Court %dministrator &OC%', the spouses Murph( and Marinelle P. Chu and %)*%S )raders &complainants' char+ed ud+e Mario -. Capellan &respondent', %ssistin+ ud+e of the Metropolitan )rial Court &Me)C', -ranch !#, ue/on Cit(, 0ith *ross I+norance of the 1a0, Partialit( and *rave %buse of Decision.  -%C2*RO3ND 4%C)SOn March , ##5, spouses Ofelia and Rafael %n+an+co filed before the Me)C, -ranch !#, ue/on Cit(, an unla0ful detainer complaint, 0ith application for the issuance of a 0rit of preliminar( mandator( in6unction &PMI' a+ainst the complainants.  )he complainants filed their ans0er 0ith compulsor( counterclaim on March 7#, ##5. 7 )he respondent heard the application for the issuance of a 0rit of PMI on %pril , ##5, !  November #, ##5, 8 December , ##5, 9  4ebruar(  , ##:, 5  and %pril , ##:. :  ;e later set the unla0ful detainer case for preliminar( conference on une !, ##:, but rescheduled it to %u+ust 9, ##: due to the still pendin+ application for a 0rit of PMI. $ In an order dated October 5, ##:, #  the respondent denied the application for a 0rit of PMI and set the case for preliminar( conference on November 8, ##:. On this date, the respondent referred the case for mediation,  so the preliminar( conference 0as a+ain reset to December $, ##:.  On November , ##:, the spouses %n+an+co filed their pre<trial brief. 7  )he complainants, on the other hand, did not file their pre<trial brief.Durin+ the December $, ##: preliminar( conference, the complainants moved for the consi+nation of several chec=s as pa(ment for the amounts the( o0ed to the spouses %n+an+co, for 0hich the respondent set clarificator( hearin+s on anuar( 7 and 7#, ##$. !  )he preliminar( conference finall( too= place on 4ebruar( 7, ##$. 8 Durin+ the 4ebruar( 7, ##$ preliminar( conference, the complainants moved to dismiss the unla0ful detainer complaint on the +rounds that> &' the spouses %n+an+co failed to compl( 0ith the  re?uired baran+a( conciliation and to implead the other co<o0ners of the propert( sub6ect of the unla0ful detainer case@ and & ' the Me)C had no 6urisdiction to issue a 0rit of PMI. On the other hand, the spouses %n+an+co orall( moved to declare the complainants in default for their failure to file a pre<trial brief. 9 On 4ebruar( 9, ##$, the respondent issued the assailed 6oint order  5  0hich submitted the unla0ful detainer case for decision based on the facts alle+ed in the unla0ful detainer complaint.)he complainants moved for reconsideration, but the respondent denied their motion. :  )he complainants thereupon filed the present administrative complaint a+ainst the respondent. )he( alsofiled a motion as=in+ for the respondentAs inhibition from the unla0ful detainer case. $  )he respondent eventuall( inhibited himself from the case in an order dated September :, ##$. # COMP1%IN) %*%INS) );E RESPONDEN))he complainants alle+e that the respondent had no basis to declare them in default because no notice of preliminar( conference 0as issued to them.   )he( ar+ue that the issuance of a notice of preliminar( conference is mandator( and its non<issuance ma( be punishable under Section , Rule  of Supreme Court %dministrative Memorandum &%.M.' No. #< <#!, 0hich provides>SEC. . Disciplinar( sanctions on the 6ud+e. B )he presidin+ 6ud+e ma(, upon a verified complaint filed 0ith the Office of the Court %dministrator, be sub6ect to disciplinar( action under an( of the follo0in+ cases>& ' 4ailure to issue a pre<trial order in the form prescribed in these Rules. %lso, the complainants alle+e that the respondent erred in entertainin+ the oral motion to declare thedefendants in default@ in incurrin+ dela( in settin+ the unla0ful detainer case for preliminar( conference@ and in not dismissin+ the unla0ful detainer complaint for the spouses %n+an+coAs failureto personall( appear durin+ the mediation proceedin+s. )he complainants also alle+e that these actsof the respondent clearl( sho0ed the latterAs bias and partialit( to0ards the plaintiffs.);E RESPONDEN)AS %NSERIn his ans0er 0ith counter<char+e,  the respondent ar+ues that he did not commit an( violation for failin+ to issue a notice of preliminar( conference because there is nothin+ in the $$ Revised Rules on Summar( Procedure or the Rules of Court, particularl( in Section 9, Rule :, that re?uires him to issue a notice of preliminar( conference, in addition to his order settin+ the case for preliminar( conference. ;e claims that, despite the lac= of notice, both parties 0ere dul( informed of the preliminar( conference on November 8, ##: throu+h his order dated October 5, ##:@ thus, to issue a notice at that time 0ould onl( be superfluous.)he respondent adds that the complainantsA citation of Supreme Court %.M. No. #< <#! 0as misplaced@ that the said memorandum applies eclusivel( to cases involvin+ intra<corporate controversies, not to e6ectment cases, and sub6ects a 6ud+e to disciplinar( action for his failure to issue a pre<trial order, not for failure to issue a notice of preliminar( conference.  On the complainantsA other alle+ations, the respondent ar+ues that he could not be faulted for not dismissin+ the unla0ful detainer complaint due to the alle+ed failure of the spouses %n+an+co to personall( appear at the mediation proceedin+s because he could not have =no0n of their non<appearance durin+ that time, as he 0as informed of 0hat happened durin+ the mediation proceedin+s onl( after their conclusion. ;e also states that it 0ould be unfair to allo0 the complainants, 0ho activel( participated in the mediation proceedin+s, to no0 impu+n their dealin+s 0ith and the authorit( of the la0(er 0ho attended the mediation in behalf of the spouses %n+an+co.3ltimatel(, the respondent pra(ed for the dismissal of the administrative complaint, as it is nothin+ but an insidious attempt b( the complainants to harass him and to conceal their ne+li+ence in not filin+ a pre<trial brief.);E OC%AS RECOMMEND%)IONIn a report dated November , ##, 7  the OC% finds no merit in some of the complainantsA alle+ations.4irst, the OC% remains unconvinced that the complainantsA ri+hts to due process 0ere violated because of the lac= of notice of preliminar( conference@ that the complainants could not fei+n i+norance of the scheduled date of preliminar( conference and their need to file a pre<trial brief sincethe( received copies of the respondentAs order dated October 5, ##: and of the other part(As pre<trial brief before the scheduled preliminar( conference on November 8, ##:@ and that the complainants 0ere also present in court durin+ the times the preliminar( conference 0as repeatedl( reset to later dates. Considerin+ these circumstances, the OC% opines that the complainants 0ere merel( findin+ an ecuse to 6ustif( their ne+li+ence as the( 0ere afforded enou+h opportunit( to submit their pre<trial brief, but the( still failed to do so.Second, the OC% a+rees 0ith the respondent that Supreme Court %.M. No. #< <#! is inapplicable to the sub6ect unla0ful detainer case as it pertains to the Proposed Interim Rules of Procedure *overnin+ Intra<Corporate Controversies under Republic %ct &R.%.' No. :5$$. ! )hird, the OC% belies the complainantsA alle+ation that the respondent entertained the spouses  %n+an+coAs oral motion to declare defendants in default. hile the complainants 0ere correct that a motion to declare defendants in default is a prohibited pleadin+ under the $$ Revised Rules on Summar( Procedure@ the respondent, in issuin+ the assailed 6oint order dated 4ebruar( 9, ##$, did not rule on the basis of the oral motion but relied on Section :, Rule 5#, in relation to Section 9, Rule : of the Rules of Court, 0hich provides>Sec. :. Preliminar( conference@ appearance of parties. B Not later than thirt( &7#' da(s after the last ans0er is filed, a preliminar( conference shall be held. )he provisions of Rule : on pre<trial shall beapplicable to the preliminar( conference unless inconsistent 0ith the provisions of this Rule.)he failure of the plaintiff to appear in the preliminar( conference shall be cause for the dismissal of the complaint. )he defendant 0ho appears in the absence of the plaintiff shall be entitled to  6ud+ment on his counterclaim in accordance 0ith the net precedin+ section. %ll cross< claims shall be dismissed.If a sole defendant shall fail to appear, the plaintiff shall li=e0ise be entitled to 6ud+ment in accordance 0ith the net precedin+ section. )his procedure shall not appl( 0here one of t0o or  more defendants sued under a common cause of action 0ho had pleaded a common defense shall appear at the preliminar( conference.Sec. 9. Pre<trial brief. < )he parties shall file 0ith the court and serve on the adverse part(, in such manner as shall ensure their receipt thereof at least three &7' da(s before the date of the pre<trial, their respective pre<trial briefs 0hich shall contain, amon+ others>4ailure to file the pre<trial brief shall have the same effect as failure to appear at the pre<trial. %nd even assumin+ that the respondent erred in issuin+ the assailed 6oint order, the OC% opines thaterrors committed in the eercise of ad6udicative functions cannot be corrected throu+h administrativeproceedin+s 0here 6udicial remedies are available@ that there must be a final declaration b( the appellate court that the assailed order is manifestl( erroneous or impelled b( ill<0ill, malice or other similar motive.)he OC%, ho0ever, finds merit in the complainantsA alle+ation that the respondent incurred dela( in settin+ the case for preliminar( conference. )he OC% finds that the respondent violated Section 5 of the $$ Revised Rules on Summar( Procedure, 0hich provides that a preliminar( conference shall be held not later than thirt( &7#' da(s after the last ans0er is filed, and Rule .# , Canon  of the Code of udicial Conduct, 0hich mandates that 6ud+es should administer 6ustice 0ithout dela(. It opines that the respondent should have facilitated the prompt disposition of the sub6ect case and refrained from postponin+ and resettin+ the case for preliminar( conference several times.)he OC%, then, recommends that the present administrative complaint be redoc=eted as a re+ular administrative case and that the respondent be reprimanded, considerin+ that this 0as his first offense, 0ith a stern 0arnin+ that a repetition of the same or similar act shall be dealt 0ith more severel(.In a Resolution dated anuar( $, #, 8  0e ordered the administrative complaint a+ainst the respondent redoc=eted as a re+ular administrative case and re?uired the parties to manifest, 0ithin ten &#' da(s from notice, 0hether the( 0ere 0illin+ to submit the case for decision on the basis of the pleadin+s or records filed and submitted.-oth the complainants and the respondent epressed their 0illin+ness to submit the case for decision in their Manifestations dated March , # 9  and %u+ust $, #, 5  respectivel(.);E CO3R)AS R31IN*e find the OC%As findin+s to be 0ell ta=en. %s the OC% recommends, 0e find no merit in the complainantsA alle+ations that the respondent committed +ross i+norance of the la0, partialit( and +rave abuse of discretion in not issuin+ a notice for the holdin+ of the November 8, ##: preliminar( conference, and in entertainin+ the spouses  %n+an+coAs oral motion to declare the defendants in default.e find no violation committed b( the respondent in not issuin+ a notice for the November 8, ##: preliminar( conference because his order dated October 5, ##: alread( constituted sufficient notice
We Need Your Support
Thank you for visiting our website and your interest in our free products and services. We are nonprofit website to share and download documents. To the running of this website, we need your help to support us.

Thanks to everyone for your continued support.

No, Thanks