FACTS:
The case stems from a motion for reconsideration from a civil case of damages filed by one Aznar, the plaintiff in the original case, against Citibank. The motion for reconsideration was re-raffled to the sala of Respondent Judge De La Peña. Judge De La Peña granted the motion for reconsideration which prompted the filing of Atty. Neri of the administrative case now in dispute, charging Respondent Judge of dishonesty and gross ignorance of the law. Respondent Judge, in his defense, contended that he based his decision from an ex parte manifestation made by Aznar. Petitioner assailed the Respondent’s appreciation of the ex parte manifestation as Citibank was not served a copy of such.
The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) found Respondent Judge liable for violating for violating Section 4, Rule 13 which requires that adverse parties be served copies of all pleadings and similar papers; in relation to Section 5, Rule 15 which requires a movant to set his motion for hearing, unless it is one of those which a court can act upon without prejudicing the rights of the other party; both provisions of the Revised Rules of Civil Procedure.
According to the OCA, the fact that plaintiff Aznar had failed to serve a copy of his ex parte manifestation upon Citibank should have been reason enough for respondent to disregard the same. The OCA found Respondent only liable for simple misconduct.
The case stems from a motion for reconsideration from a civil case of damages filed by one Aznar, the plaintiff in the original case, against Citibank. The motion for reconsideration was re-raffled to the sala of Respondent Judge De La Peña. Judge De La Peña granted the motion for reconsideration which prompted the filing of Atty. Neri of the administrative case now in dispute, charging Respondent Judge of dishonesty and gross ignorance of the law. Respondent Judge, in his defense, contended that he based his decision from an ex parte manifestation made by Aznar. Petitioner assailed the Respondent’s appreciation of the ex parte manifestation as Citibank was not served a copy of such.
The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) found Respondent Judge liable for violating for violating Section 4, Rule 13 which requires that adverse parties be served copies of all pleadings and similar papers; in relation to Section 5, Rule 15 which requires a movant to set his motion for hearing, unless it is one of those which a court can act upon without prejudicing the rights of the other party; both provisions of the Revised Rules of Civil Procedure.
According to the OCA, the fact that plaintiff Aznar had failed to serve a copy of his ex parte manifestation upon Citibank should have been reason enough for respondent to disregard the same. The OCA found Respondent only liable for simple misconduct.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Respondent Judge is liable for violating the aforesaid
provisions of the Rules of Civil Procedure
RULING:
No, Respondent Judge did not violate the stated provisions of the Rules of
Civil Procedure. The prevailing doctrine in our jurisdiction is that a motion
without a notice of hearing addressed to the parties is a mere scrap of paper.
However, the same cannot be said for manifestations which, unless otherwise
indicated, are usually made merely for the information of the court.
Nevertheless,
Judge must still be found guilty for knowingly rendering an unjust judgment,
for having based his decision on an ex parte manifestation while Citibank was
never made aware of such. Said action violates the principle of fair play,
proof that there is something amiss Respondent Judge’s sense of fairness and
righteousness.
No comments:
Post a Comment