The mandatory character of pre-trial is embodied
in Administrative Circular No. 3-99 dated
January 15, 1999, and found its way in Section 2, 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. x x x x
To further show that the Court is serious in
implementing the rules on pre-trial, in Alviola v. Avelino, A.M.
No. MTJ-P-08-1697, February 29, 2008, the Supreme 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, Title I (A) of A.M. No. 03-1-09-SC. x x x 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. (NPC
VS. ADIONG, A.M. NO. RTJ-07-2060, JULY
27, 2011, VILLARAMA, J.)
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.