Judicial Conduct and Mediation: When a Judge's Zeal to Settle Crosses the Line

The Supreme Court has long encouraged judges to promote amicable settlements to decongest court dockets. But how far can a judge go in pushing parties to settle? In Elgar v. Judge Santos, Jr. (A.M. No. MTJ-16-1880, February 4, 2020), the Court drew a clear line: a judge's persistence in pursuing settlement, no matter how well-intentioned, must never compromise the integrity of the judiciary or the speedy disposition of cases.

The Case

Susan Elgar filed a petition for the allowance of a Deed of Donation Mortis Causa executed by her late husband, giving her two parcels of agricultural land. Her husband's son from a first marriage opposed the petition.

Judge Soliman Santos, Jr. of the Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Nabua-Bato, Camarines Sur took over the case. From the start, he showed a strong inclination toward settling the dispute. He directed the parties to propose terms for amicable settlement, sent text messages to Elgar's counsel urging settlement, conducted meetings inside his chambers, and even approached the oppositor during an accidental meeting in Naga City to discuss settlement.

Over nearly two years, the case never progressed beyond the preliminary conference stage. Judge Santos repeatedly reset hearings, issued orders identifying properties for swapping as if the parties had already agreed, and eventually required a pre-trial despite the oppositor's failure to file a pre-trial brief. When Elgar moved to withdraw her petition, Judge Santos granted it—but then issued an Extended Order castigating her counsel for "pride and prejudice."

The Issues

The case raised several questions: Did Judge Santos commit gross ignorance of the law? Did his settlement efforts violate the Code of Judicial Conduct? Was he liable for undue delay?

The Ruling

The Supreme Court partly adopted the findings of the Office of the Court Administrator, holding Judge Santos administratively liable for multiple infractions.

Failure to refer to court-annexed mediation. The Court found that Judge Santos disregarded A.M. No. 01-10-5-SC-PHILJA, which institutionalized court-annexed mediation in the Philippines. Under this framework, mediatable cases should be referred to the Philippine Mediation Center (PMC). The probate case was clearly mediatable, and the MCTC had been referring cases to the PMC since 2008. Instead of referring the case, Judge Santos took it upon himself to mediate.

Overbearing settlement efforts and undue delay. The Court held that while judges are enjoined to encourage settlement, such efforts "should be within the bounds of propriety and without the slightest perception of impartiality." Judge Santos' acts—texting counsel, conducting ex parte meetings, and approaching a litigant outside court proceedings—cast doubt on his impartiality. OCA Circular No. 70-2003 expressly prohibits chamber sessions without the other party and counsel present.

The Court also noted that the case dragged on from January 2010 to December 2012 without going beyond pre-trial. While some delays were attributable to the parties, the Court found that Judge Santos' overbearing desire to settle was the main cause.

Improper Extended Order. The Court ruled that Judge Santos exceeded the bounds of propriety by issuing an Extended Order that scolded and lectured Elgar's counsel after the petition had already been withdrawn. There was no pending incident justifying such an order.

Gross ignorance of the law. The Court found that Judge Santos committed a blatant error when he gave the oppositor the option to file a pre-trial brief. Section 6, Rule 18 of the Rules of Court makes the filing of pre-trial briefs at least three days before pre-trial mandatory. Failure to file has the same effect as failure to appear at pre-trial. By treating the oppositor's previous pleadings as a substitute, Judge Santos disregarded a clear procedural rule.

What Was Not Penalized

The Court clarified that some acts were not administratively sanctionable: advising the parties to bring co-heirs residing abroad, not limiting the case to the deed's validity, and requiring information on properties not subject of the petition. These were judicial in nature, and errors in appreciation do not automatically render a judge liable unless tainted with fraud, bad faith, or deliberate intent to do injustice.

Practical Takeaways

• Settlement efforts have limits. Judges may encourage amicable settlement, but they must do so within official proceedings and without creating an appearance of partiality.
• Ex parte meetings are prohibited. A judge cannot meet with one party without the other party and counsel present, even inside chambers.
• Court-annexed mediation is the proper channel. Judges should refer mediatable cases to the Philippine Mediation Center rather than acting as mediators themselves.
• Procedural rules are mandatory. Rules like the pre-trial brief requirement under Section 6, Rule 18 are not optional, and a judge's disregard of them constitutes gross ignorance of the law.
• Delay has consequences. A judge's persistence in pushing settlement cannot come at the expense of the speedy disposition of cases.

This article is general information and not legal advice. For your specific situation, consult a lawyer or ask ASG Legal AI.