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.