Negligent but not ignorant

A LAW EACH DAY (Keeps Trouble Away) By Jose C. Sison (The Philippine Star) Updated

December 22, 2010 12:00 AM Comments (0)

To be liable for gross ignorance of the law, a judge must be shown, among others, to have
“ignored, contradicted or failed to apply settled law and jurisprudence”. In this case, the
Regional Trial Court (RTC) Judge (MP) is not found to be grossly ignorant of the law, but he is
still sanctioned because of simple negligence amounting to misconduct.
The administrative case here was an offshoot of a civil case filed by Nora against the Roman
Catholic Church asking for reconveyance of a 350 square meter land on the ground that it is no
longer being devoted for the purpose it was donated. Pursuant to the 1997 Rules of Procedure
(Rule 16, Section 20 A), Judge MP referred the case for mediation to the Philippine Mediation
Center (PMC) and ordered the parties to appear for mediation on November 4, 2005 at 2 p.m.
On October 14, 2005 however, November 4, 2005 was declared a non-working holiday in
celebration of the Feast of Ramadan. In view of this development, Nora and her counsel went to
the PMC on November 7, 2005 instead of November 4, 2005 and requested for a resetting on
November 15, 2005. This request for resetting was not signed by the Archbishop as
representative of the Church and his counsel. On the line allotted for their signatures was the
phrase “failed to appear”.
On November 8, 2005, the RTC already received the Mediator’s report stating that the parties
failed to appear on November 4, 2005 and requesting assistance from the court to secure their
appearance on November 21, 2005 for the mediation conference. The following day, November
9, 2005, Judge MP issued an order dismissing Nora’s complaint for failure to obey the order of
the Court and to appear on November 4, 2005 for mediation conference.
Thus Nora, through her granddaughter Cely, as Attorney-in Fact, filed an administrative
complaint against Judge MP for: (a) gross ignorance of the law and knowingly rendering an
unjust judgment by issuing the Order of November 9, 2005 without regard to the fact that
November 4, 2005, the first scheduled date of the mediation conference, was declared a holiday;
and (b) grave abuse of authority for issuing said order in the absence of the corresponding
mediator’s report.
Judge MP however maintained that his actions in said case were proper. He pointed out that
when he set the conference on November 4, 2005, the latter date had not yet been declared a
holiday. Being busy with daily court trials, he explained that he could not keep track of all events
nor monitor in detail the developments of the cases he heard. Was Judge MP guilty of the
charges?
For the charge of gross ignorance of the law, he is not guilty. There was ostensible legal basis for
him to dismiss an action for failure of the plaintiff to attend the mediation conference. Mediation
is part of pre-trial, and failure to appear at the pre-trial shall be cause for dismissal of the action
(Rule 18, Section 5, Rules of Court).
However Judge MP’s order of November 9, 2010 dismissing the case was improperly and
prematurely issued. He failed to take into consideration that Nora, the plaintiff could not have
attended the conference on November 4, 2005 because said date has been declared a holiday
pursuant to a presidential proclamation which was totally outside Nora’s control. When he issued
said order, he should have been already aware that November 4, was declared a holiday. It was a
mere 5 days from November 4, 2005 so he could have forgotten so soon that November 4, 2005
was a holiday. He could also have easily inquired from the PMC or required them to explain the
reason for the resetting. A heavy workload does not excuse him from ascertaining all pertinent
facts that would enable him to justly resolve or decide a case.
Evidently Judge MP failed to exercise the necessary diligence before issuing the order of
dismissal to the prejudice of Nora. But he is guilty of simple negligence only not gross ignorance
of the law which may fall within the ambit of simple misconduct or the transgression of some
established and definite rule of action relating to or connected with the performance of official
functions. This is a less serious offense punishable by suspension of one to three months or a fine
of P10,000 to P20,000 (Rule 140 of the Rules of Court as amended). So Judge MP should be
fined P10,000 for simple misconduct (Senarlo vs. Paderanga, AM No. RTJ-06-2025, April 5,
2010, 617 SCRA, 247).
Note: Books containing compilation of my articles on Labor Law and Criminal Law (Vols. I and
II) are now available. Call tel. 7249445.
E-mail at: jcson@pldtdsl.net