G.R. No. RTJ-07-2060. July 27, 2011.
NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION, represented by its President CYRIL DEL CALLAR, Complainant, vs. JUDGE SANTOS B. ADIONG, RTC, BRANCH 8, MARAWI CITY, Respondent.

FACTS

The National Power Corporation (NPC) filed an administrative complaint against Judge Santos B. Adiong for gross ignorance of the law, manifest partiality, and conduct unbecoming a member of the Judiciary. The complaint arose from his handling of six civil cases for damages against NPC. In Civil Case No. 1918-03, Judge Adiong issued a Resolution on February 28, 2006, ordering NPC to refund hundreds of millions of pesos and to pay attorney’s fees, despite NPC’s claim that no pre-trial conference was conducted and no formal offer of exhibits was made by the plaintiffs. NPC’s motion for reconsideration was denied, and the judge directed execution of the resolution. In five other related cases (Civil Case Nos. 1322-95, 1332-95, 1367-95, 1361-95, and 1355-95), Judge Adiong granted motions for execution pending appeal, issuing writs of execution. NPC alleged these grants failed to conform to strict jurisprudential criteria and demonstrated bias, citing the judge’s swift action on a motion to cite a bank personnel in contempt. In his defense, Judge Adiong asserted that hearings were conducted where parties presented evidence, that NPC waived pre-trial by not filing a pre-trial brief and only belatedly raising the issue, and that the orders for execution pending appeal were based on good reasons stated in the special orders. The case was referred to the Court of Appeals for investigation.

ISSUE

Whether Judge Santos B. Adiong is administratively liable for gross ignorance of the law and/or manifest partiality based on his handling of the subject cases, particularly for allegedly failing to conduct a mandatory pre-trial conference in Civil Case No. 1918-03 and for granting execution pending appeal in the other five cases.

RULING

Yes, Judge Adiong is administratively liable for gross ignorance of the law. The Supreme Court found that his failure to conduct a pre-trial conference in Civil Case No. 1918-03 constituted a blatant disregard of the mandatory character of pre-trial under the Rules of Court. Pre-trial is a mandatory procedural requirement intended to expedite the disposition of cases. The judge’s claim that NPC waived pre-trial by not filing a pre-trial brief is untenable; the duty to conduct pre-trial is primarily the judge’s responsibility. His omission to do so, and instead proceeding directly to hearings on the merits, was a gross violation of a basic and fundamental rule. Regarding the charge of manifest partiality in granting execution pending appeal, the Court found the grounds cited by the judge (the plaintiffs’ advanced age and poverty) were not the “good reasons” required by jurisprudence for discretionary execution. However, this error, while indicative of poor judgment, was not so gross or malicious as to constitute administrative liability on its own. Considering the totality of the circumstances, including the failure to conduct pre-trial, Judge Adiong was found guilty of gross ignorance of the law. The Court imposed a fine of P20,000.00, with a stern warning that a repetition of the same or similar act would be dealt with more severely.