DISPOSITIVE:
WHEREFORE, the Motion for Partial Reconsideration· filed by respondent Judge Soliman M. Santos, Jr. of Branch 61; Regional Trial Court, Naga City, Camarines Sur is PARTLY GRANTED.
The Court’s Decision dated February 4, 2020 is hereby MODIFIED. The administrative liability of respondent Judge Soliman M. Santos, Jr. for giving the oppositor the option of submitting his pretrial brief in contravention of its mandatory nature is reduced from gross ignorance of the law to violation of Supreme Co11rt rules, directives and circulars. Thus, the Court imposes upon him the penalty of a fine of Pl0,000.00 each for: (1) violation of Supreme Court rules, directives and circulars committed by respondent through various acts; and (2) Simple Misconduct committed by respondent through various acts, or a total of P20,000.00. The penalty of Pl0,000.00 for Simple Misconduct is understood to include the penalty for respondent’s Undue Delay in terminating the preliminary conference in Special Proceedings No. 1870.
He is STERNLY WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar acts in the future shall definitely be dealt with more severely. He is reminded to be more circumspect in the performance of his duties which should be discharged in accordance with the rules, directives, and circulars duly issued by the Court.
Let a copy of this Resolution be attached to the personal record of respondent Judge Soliman ·M. Santos, Jr.
So Ordered.“
SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:
WHAT HAPPENED IN THIS CASE?
JUDGE SANTOS WANTED THE PARTIES TO SETTLE. HE UNDULY DELAYED THE TERMINATION OF THE PRELIMINARY CONFERECE; EVEN AFTER COMPLAINANT WITHDRAW HIS PETITION HE CASTIGATED HIM IN AN EXTENDED ORDER WHICH WAS NOT ACTUALLY NECESSARY. HE ALLOWED OPPOSITOR THE OPTION NOT TO FILE PRE-TRIAL BRIEF WHICH IS MANDATORY. BUT BECAUSE JUDGE SANTOS ACTED IN GOOD FAITH THE SUPREME COURT GRANTED PARTIALLY HIS MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION. GOOD FAITH WAS CONSIDERED MITIGATING.
“In other cases involving the administrative liability of judges, the Court took into consideration lack of showing of malice, corrupt motives, or improper considerations on the part of the judge to mitigate the penalty.
In the present case, the Court finds that while respondent committed the above-stated offenses, the infractions were not attended by bad faith. In trui.h, respondent’s actuations all arose from a single petition filed by complainant; and that the respondent’s action were driven by his genuine intention of making the parties arrive at an amicable settlement. \1/hile respondent’s good faith does not absolve him from administrative liability, the Court considers the absence of malice and corrupt motive on his part as a circumstance mitigating his liability.”
TO READ THE DECISION, JUST CLICK/DOWNLOAD THE FILE BELOW. IF FILE DOES NOT APPEAR ON SCREEN GO TO DOWNLOAD. IT IS THE FIRST ITEM. OPEN IT.
NOTE: TO RESEARCH ON A TOPIC IN YAHOO OR GOOGLE SEARCH JUST TYPE “attybulao and the topic”. EXAMPLE: TO RESEARCH ON FORUM SHOPPING JUST TYPE “attybulao and forum shopping”.
J.A.B. Bulao & Associates 