Judge sanctioned for not holding pretrial conference in a case. - A.M. No. RTJ-07-2060

A.M. No. RTJ-07-2060

(click link)

"x x x.

Judge Adiong failed to conduct a pre-trial conference in Civil Case No. 1918-03 contrary to elementary rules of procedure which he should have known all too well considering his long years of service in the bench. The mandatory character of pre-trial is embodied in Administrative Circular No. 3-99[23] dated January 15, 1999, and found its way in Section 2,[24] Rule 18 of the Rules of Court, which imposes a duty upon the plaintiff to promptly move ex parte that the case be set for pre-trial. To further implement the pre-trial guidelines, this directive was reiterated in Administrative Matter No. 03-1-09-SC[25] entitled “Guidelines to be Observed by Trial Court Judges and Clerks of Court in the Conduct of Pre-Trial and Use of Deposition-Discovery Measures” which recognized the importance of pre-trial and the deposition-discovery measures as vital components of case management in trial courts.[26]

To further show that the Court is serious in implementing the rules on pre-trial, in Alviola v. Avelino[27] the Court imposed the penalty of suspension on a judge who merely failed to issue a pre-trial order within ten (10) days after the termination of the pre-trial conference as mandated by Paragraph 8,[28] Title I (A) of A.M. No. 03-1-09-SC.

Here, respondent judge failed to conduct the pre-trial conference itself. It is elementary and plain that the holding of such a pre-trial conference is mandatory and failure to do so is inexcusable. When the law or procedure is so elementary, such as the provisions of the Rules of Court, not to know it or to act as if one does not know it constitutes gross ignorance of the law.[29] Such ignorance of a basic rule in court procedure, as failing to conduct pre-trial, sadly amounts to gross ignorance and warrants a corresponding penalty.

x x x."