You are on page 1of 1

LUCAS vs.

JUDGE FABROS TOPIC: RULE ON SUMMARY PROC

JANUARY 31, 2000

PETITIONER: GLORIA LUCAS


RESPONDENT: JUDGE AMELIA A. FABROS (Branch 9, MeTC, Manila)

FACTS: P filed a complaint against R relative to an ejectment case, where P was the
defendant. She alleged that the judge issued an Order granting the plaintiffs’ MR in the said
case, which was dismissed for failure of the plaintiff and her counsel to appear at the
Preliminary Conference. P alleges that said MR is prohibited under Sec. 19(c) of the Rules on
Summary Procedure. R, in her Comment, stated that the Order was granted to prevent
miscarriage of justice, pursuant to the inherent powers of the Court to amend and control its
process under Sec. 5(g), Rule 135, ROC.

PETITIONER COURT RESPONDENT


VERIFIED COMPLAINT SC
COMMENT
(GROSS IGNORANCE OF (referred to)
LAW AND GRAVE ABUSE
OF DISCRETION) OFFICE OF THE COURT
ADMINISTRATOR
Recommended a fine of P2k for
grave abuse of discretion

SC
OCA recommendation without
factual and legal basis

RATIO:

Rule: a motion for reconsideration is a prohibited pleading under Sec. 19 of the Revised Rule on
Summary Procedure

 Applicability: only where the judgment sought to be reconsidered is one rendered on


the merits
 Here, the order of dismissal issued by R due to the failure of the party to appear
during the preliminary conference is not a judgment on the merits after the trial of
the case; hence, a MR of such order is not the prohibited pleading contemplated
under Sec. 19(c) of the Rules on Summary Procedure
 Therefore, there is no grave abuse of discretion or ignorance of law on the part of R
judge in giving due course to the MR

BAUTISTA │ ESTERON │ HIPOLITO │ MANANTAN | RAMIREZ │ PIOQUINTO │ SALES | YAMO 3-EVE