Allarde v. Laggui
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Atty. Rodolfo T. Allarde filed a sworn complaint against Judge Pedro N. Laggui for ignorance of the law, gross and manifest partiality amounting to graft, and knowingly rendering an unjust judgment/order. Complainant alleged that pre-trial proceedings were conducted by Judge Job B. Madayag, but respondent Judge Laggui subsequently set the case for pre-trial, apparently setting aside the prior proceedings. Due to the failure of the complainant and his counsel to appear at the scheduled continuation of the pre-trial on September 30, 1987, respondent Judge dismissed Civil Case No. 15244. A subsequent Motion to Lift Order of Dismissal was denied by respondent Judge. Procedural History: The respondent Judge was required to submit a comment on the complaint. In his comment, respondent Judge refuted the allegations, stating that the Order setting the pre-trial was issued on May 21, 1987, not June 22, 1987. He clarified that the proceedings before Judge Madayag were for a preliminary injunction, not a pre-trial. He asserted that the complainant never informed Branch 60 about any terminated pre-trial in Branch 145 and that the proceedings in Branch 60 were indeed for pre-trial and trial proper. He further explained that the dismissal on September 30, 1987, was due to the non-appearance of the complainant and his counsel despite notice, and that the dismissal was without prejudice. The Court Administrator's summary indicated that the respondent Judge's explanation satisfied the Court that the dismissal did not warrant the charges filed. The Petition: The complainant contended that the respondent Judge put an end to a justiciable controversy without resolving the merits of the case by denying the motion to lift the order of dismissal.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent Judge committed ignorance of the law, gross and manifest partiality amounting to graft, and knowingly rendered an unjust judgment/order by dismissing Civil Case No. 15244. Whether the dismissal of Civil Case No. 15244 for failure to appear at the pre-trial conference was proper.
Ruling
The administrative complaint against the respondent judge is DISMISSED for lack of merit.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether the respondent Judge committed ignorance of the law, gross and manifest partiality amounting to graft, and knowingly rendered an unjust judgment/order by dismissing Civil Case No. 15244: The Court found that the respondent Judge's dismissal of Civil Case No. 15244 did not warrant the charges filed against him. The Court was satisfied with the respondent Judge's explanation that the complainant was confused as to the nature of the proceedings held before Judge Madayag. The alleged pre-trial conference in Branch 145 was actually a hearing on the prayer for a writ of preliminary injunction. The dismissal by respondent Judge Laggui was based on the failure of the complainant and his counsel to appear at the pre-trial conference on September 30, 1987, despite proper notice. The Court found this dismissal to be in order, thus negating the claim of rendering an unjust judgment or order. On the issue of whether the dismissal of Civil Case No. 15244 for failure to appear at the pre-trial conference was proper: The Court held that the dismissal was proper and in accordance with Section 2, Rule 20 of the Revised Rules of Court, which allows a party who fails to appear at a pre-trial conference to be non-suited or considered in default. The trial court has the discretion to declare a party non-suited, and this discretion will not be interfered with by appellate courts absent a showing of grave abuse thereof. In this case, both the complainant and his counsel failed to appear at the pre-trial on September 30, 1987, despite receiving notice. Therefore, the dismissal was in order.
Main Doctrine
The dismissal of a case for failure to appear at a pre-trial conference, when done in accordance with the rules and within the sound discretion of the trial court, does not constitute rendering an unjust judgment or order, absent a showing of grave abuse of discretion.