Lucas v. Fabros
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainant Gloria Lucas charged respondent Judge Amelia A. Fabros with Gross Ignorance of the Law and Grave Abuse of Discretion. The charge stemmed from Civil Case No. 151248, an ejectment case where the complainant was the defendant. The respondent judge issued an Order dated February 26, 1997, granting the plaintiff's motion for reconsideration of a prior Order dated January 13, 1997, which had dismissed the case for failure of the plaintiff and her counsel to appear at the Preliminary Conference. Procedural History: Complainant averred that the respondent judge violated the Rules on Summary Procedure by granting a motion for reconsideration, which is a prohibited pleading. She alleged the judge acted with malice and partiality. The respondent judge, in her comment, admitted granting the motion for reconsideration, explaining it was done in the interest of justice due to the plaintiff's counsel's sudden illness and the circumstances surrounding the dismissal. The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) found that the respondent judge abused her discretion and recommended a fine. However, the Supreme Court reviewed the OCA's findings. The Petition: The administrative complaint sought disciplinary action against the respondent judge for allegedly committing Gross Ignorance of the Law and Grave Abuse of Discretion.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent judge committed Gross Ignorance of the Law and Grave Abuse of Discretion by granting a motion for reconsideration of an order dismissing an ejectment case for failure to appear at the preliminary conference. Whether a motion for reconsideration of an order of dismissal for failure to appear at the preliminary conference is a prohibited pleading under Section 19(c) of the Revised Rules on Summary Procedure.
Ruling
The Supreme Court dismissed the complaint against respondent Judge Amelia A. Fabros.
Ratio Decidendi
On whether the respondent judge committed Gross Ignorance of the Law and Grave Abuse of Discretion by granting a motion for reconsideration of an order dismissing an ejectment case for failure to appear at the preliminary conference: The Court held that the respondent judge committed no grave abuse of discretion nor was she guilty of ignorance of the law. The order of dismissal issued by the respondent judge due to the failure of a party to appear during the preliminary conference was not a judgment on the merits after trial of the case. Therefore, a motion for the reconsideration of such an order is not the prohibited pleading contemplated under Section 19(c) of the Rule on Summary Procedure. The judge's action, while aware of the rule, was in consideration of the circumstances that might lead to a miscarriage of justice, which is a valid concern for a judge to address. On whether a motion for reconsideration of an order of dismissal for failure to appear at the preliminary conference is a prohibited pleading under Section 19(c) of the Revised Rules on Summary Procedure: The Court clarified that Section 19(c) of the Revised Rules on Summary Procedure, which prohibits motions for reconsideration of a judgment, applies only when the judgment sought to be reconsidered is one rendered on the merits after trial. In this case, the dismissal was due to the failure to appear at the preliminary conference, not a judgment on the merits. Therefore, the motion for reconsideration was not prohibited under the said rule. The Court cited Joven v. Court of Appeals to support the distinction between a judgment on the merits and an order of dismissal for procedural lapses.
Main Doctrine
A motion for reconsideration of an order of dismissal due to failure to appear at a preliminary conference, which is not a judgment on the merits, is not a prohibited pleading under Section 19(c) of the Revised Rules on Summary Procedure.