ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION | MURPHY CHU VS. HON. MARIO B. CAPELLAN A.M. NO. MTJ-11-1779, JULY 16, 2012

MURPHY CHU VS. HON. MARIO B. CAPELLAN

A.M. NO. MTJ-11-1779, JULY 16, 2012

 

TOPIC/DOCTRINE

Under Section 7 of the 1991 Revised Rules on Summary Procedure, a preliminary conference should be held not later than thirty (30) days after the last answer is filed. The respondent set the case for preliminary conference only on June 24, 2008, i.e., at a time way beyond the required thirty (30)-day period.

 

FACTS

In a verified complaint dated September 14, 2009 filed before the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA), the spouses Murphy and Marinelle P. Chu and ATGAS Traders (complainants) charged Judge Mario B. Capellan (respondent), Assisting Judge of the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC), Branch 40, Quezon City, with Gross Ignorance of the Law, Partiality and Grave Abuse of Decision

The complainants allege that the respondent had no basis to declare them in default because no notice of preliminary conference was issued to them. They argue that the issuance of a notice of preliminary conference is mandatory and its non-issuance may be punishable under Section 2, Rule 11 of Supreme Court Administrative Memorandum (A.M.) No. 01-2-04.

ISSUE

RULING

The court held that under Section 7 of the 1991 Revised Rules on Summary Procedure, a preliminary conference should be held not later than thirty (30) days after the last answer is filed.

Here, the respondent set the case for preliminary conference only on June 24, 2008, i.e., at a time way beyond the required thirty (30)-day period. Sections 9 and 11, Rule 140 of the Rules of Court , as amended by A.M. No. 01-8-10-SC, classifies undue delay in rendering a decision or order as a less serious charge. Judges should always be mindful of their duty to render justice within the periods prescribed by law.







Popular posts from this blog

CRIMINAL LAW II CASE DIGEST/ BACLAYON V. MUTIA, 129 SCRA 148

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I CASE DIGEST | THE DIOCESE OF BACOLOD V. COMELEC G.R. No. 205728, January 21, 2015

CREDIT TRANSACTIONS CASE DIGEST/ BPI FAMILY BANK VS. FRANCO/ G. R. NO. 123498/ 23 NOVEMBER 2007

REMEDIAL LAW | Riviera Golf Club v. CCA G.R. No. 173783, June 17 2015

CREDIT TRANSACTION CASE DIGEST/ MINA VS. PASCUAL/ 25 PHIL. 540 (1923)

CREDIT TRANSACTION CASE DIGEST/ QUINTOS VS. BECK/ 69 PHIL. 108 (1939)

LAW ON PROPERTY | ACOSTA V. OCHOA, ET AL., G.R. NO. 211559; G.R. NO. 215634, OCTOBER 15, 2019

ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION | HYGIENIC PACKAGING CORPORATION VS. NUTRI-ASIA, INC ., G.R. NO. 201302, JANUARY 23, 2019

LEGAL ETHICS | MAURICIO C. ULEP VS. THE LEGAL CLINIC, INC Bar Matter No. 553. June 17, 1993

CREDIT TRANSACTION CASE DIGEST/ DELOS SANTOS VS. JARRA/ G. R. NO. L-4150/ 10 FEBRUARY 1910/ 15 PHIL. 147