G.R. No. RTJ-89-329 March 17, 1993
RODOLFO T. ALLARDE, complainant, vs. JUDGE PEDRO N. LAGGUI, RTC, Branch 60, Makati, Metro Manila, respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Rodolfo T. Allarde filed an administrative complaint against respondent Judge Pedro N. Laggui for ignorance of the law, gross and manifest partiality, and knowingly rendering an unjust judgment/order. The complaint stemmed from the dismissal of Civil Case No. 15244. Complainant alleged that pre-trial proceedings had already been conducted by Judge Job B. Madayag of Branch 145, and when no settlement was reached, the parties presented evidence. Complainant submitted a memorandum as ordered, but the defendants did not. Respondent Judge, upon the case being transferred to his branch, issued an order setting the case for pre-trial, allegedly setting aside the prior proceedings. For failure of complainant and his counsel to appear at the scheduled pre-trial continuation on September 30, 1987, respondent Judge dismissed the case. Complainant’s motion to lift the dismissal was denied.
In his comment, respondent Judge refuted the allegations. He stated there was no pre-trial conducted in Branch 145; the proceedings before Judge Madayag were hearings on complainant’s application for a writ of preliminary injunction, not on the merits. The records showed that after the injunction hearings and the filing of memoranda on that issue, no further proceedings were held before the case was transferred. Respondent Judge asserted complainant never informed the court that pre-trial was terminated. Notices for pre-trial were sent and received by complainant and his counsel. Due to their non-appearance at the pre-trial on September 30, 1987, despite notice, the complaint was dismissed without prejudice.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Judge Pedro N. Laggui is administratively liable for dismissing Civil Case No. 15244 due to the complainant’s failure to appear at the pre-trial conference.

RULING

The Court DISMISSED the administrative complaint for lack of merit. The Court found that the proceedings before Judge Madayag were not a pre-trial on the merits but hearings on the application for a preliminary injunction. Respondent Judge’s dismissal of the case was in order. Under Section 2, Rule 20 of the Revised Rules of Court, a party who fails to appear at a pre-trial conference may be non-suited. The trial court has discretion to declare a party non-suited, and absent a showing of grave abuse, such discretion will not be interfered with. Both complainant and his counsel did not appear at the pre-trial despite notice. Therefore, the dismissal did not merit the charges of ignorance of the law, partiality, or rendering an unjust order.