G.R. No. A.M. No. MTJ-16-1880, February 04, 2020
SUSAN R. ELGAR, COMPLAINANT, VS. JUDGE SOLIMAN M. SANTOS, JR., MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURT, NABUA-BATO, CAMARINES SUR, RESPONDENT.
FACTS
Complainant Susan R. Elgar filed a petition for the allowance of a Deed of Donation Mortis Causa executed by her late husband before the Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) of Nabua-Bato, Camarines Sur, docketed as Special Proceedings No. 1870. Respondent Judge Soliman M. Santos, Jr., the presiding judge, assumed jurisdiction over the case. The oppositor, Wenceslao V. Elgar, Jr., the deceased’s son from a first marriage, filed an opposition. Complainant alleged that Judge Santos engaged in excessive and improper efforts to compel an amicable settlement, including: (1) posting notices advocating settlement in the courtroom; (2) sending persistent text messages to complainant’s counsel urging settlement; (3) holding ex parte meetings with parties; (4) issuing orders that expanded the scope of the proceedings beyond the two parcels subject to the donation to include seven other parcels not part of the petition, potentially exceeding the court’s jurisdiction; (5) proposing specific property-swapping agreements without party consent; (6) displaying improper conduct during a hearing by banging his arm on the table when complainant resisted settlement; (7) improperly insisting on a pre-trial hearing in a special proceedings case and dictating its terms via an order; and (8) issuing an unnecessary “Extended Order” castigating complainant’s counsel after the petition had already been withdrawn. Judge Santos defended his actions as legitimate mediation efforts under A.M. No. 03-1-09-SC, arguing he aimed for a fair settlement involving all compulsory heirs and that pressure applied was not undue.
ISSUE
Whether Judge Soliman M. Santos, Jr. is administratively liable for Gross Ignorance of the Law and violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct based on his handling of Special Proceedings No. 1870.
RULING
Yes, Judge Santos is administratively liable, but not for Gross Ignorance of the Law. The Court found him liable for Violation of Supreme Court Rules, Directives, and Circulars and Simple Misconduct, classified as less serious charges.
The Court ruled that Judge Santos’ persistent and overzealous efforts to settle the case amounted to impropriety and violated procedural rules. While judges are encouraged to promote settlements, they must not coerce parties or disregard procedural norms. Specifically:
1. Pre-trial in Special Proceedings: Judge Santos erred in insisting on a formal pre-trial hearing. Special proceedings, like the petition for allowance of a donation mortis causa, are not governed by ordinary trial rules on pre-trial under Rule 18 of the Rules of Court. His order mandating pre-trial and dictating its contents was a violation of procedural rules.
2. Excessive Mediation Tactics: His actions—including constant texting, ex parte communications, proposing unconsented settlement terms, and expanding the case scope to properties not in the petition—exceeded the bounds of proper judicial mediation. The banging of the table constituted improper conduct unbecoming a judge.
3. Extended Order: The issuance of the Extended Order castigating counsel after the case was terminated was unnecessary and violative of judicial decorum.
However, these errors, while serious, did not rise to the level of Gross Ignorance of the Law, which requires a showing of gross incompetence, bad faith, malice, or corrupt purpose. Judge Santos’ actions appeared motivated by a misguided but not malicious zeal for settlement. Accordingly, the Court imposed a FINE of P20,000.00 for Violation of Supreme Court Rules (a less serious charge) and REPRIMAND for Simple Misconduct, with a stern warning that repetition would be dealt with more severely.