Boiser v. Aguirre

Facts:

Alfredo G. Boiser filed a complaint with the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) charging Judge Jose Y. Aguirre, Jr., RTC of Himamaylan City, Negros Occidental, Branch 55, with Grave Abuse of Discretion and Gross Ignorance of the Law.

Complainant Alfredo Boiser was the plaintiff in an ejectment case filed before the MTC of Himamaylan City, Negros Occidental. On 11 July 2003, the MTC rendered a decision in favor of complainant. The case was appealed to the RTC of Negros Occidental, Branch 55.

On 15 October 2003, defendant-appellant Salvador Julleza filed a motion to release bond on the ground that the MTC of Hinigaran, Negros Occidental had already resolved the writ of preliminary injunction without mentioning the applicant’s liability. Respondent judge granted the motion.

Complainant alleged that the issuance by respondent judge of the Order 2003 is indicative of his ignorance of the law considering that the motion did not state that he was furnished a copy of the motion thereby depriving him of his right to due process. He also averred that the motion was a mere scrap of paper for failure to state the time and date of hearing. He further alleged that respondent manifested gross ignorance when he resolved to grant the motion to release the injunction bond considering that the same was meant to answer for damages that he may suffer due to defendant’s continued illegal possession of the land.

OCA required respondent to file his comment.

Complainant filed a motion to withdraw complaint.

The case was referred to CA Justice Monina Zenarosa for investigation. During the preliminary conference, Atty. Sabio manifested that the complainant had already filed his motion to withdraw the complaint and was no longer interested in pursuing the case. On the other hand, respondent judge manifested he had retired from the service and is now appearing as a private citizen. He further informed the court that he was submitting the case without further comment as he had already filed his comment to the complaint.

Justice Zenarosa submitted her report recommending the dismissal of the complaint.

Issue:

Whether or not the respondent is liable relative to the lack of notice of hearing and proof of service

Held:

The Rules of Court requires that every motion must be set for hearing by the movant, except those motions which the court may act upon without prejudicing the rights of the adverse party. The notice of hearing must be addressed to all parties and must specify the time and date of the hearing, with proof of service. Sections 4, 5 and 6 of Rule 15 of the 1997 Rules on Civil Procedure provide:

SECTION 4. Hearing of motion.- Except for motions which the court may act upon without prejudicing the rights of the adverse party, every written motion shall be set for hearing by the applicant.

Every written motion required to be heard and the notice of the hearing thereof shall be served in such a manner as to ensure its receipt by the other party at least three (3) days before the date of hearing, unless the court for good cause sets the hearing on shorter notice.

SEC. 5. Notice of hearing.- The notice of hearing shall be addressed to all parties concerned, and shall specify the time and date of the hearing which must not be later than ten (10) days after the filing of the motion.

SEC. 6. Proof of service necessary.- No written motion set for hearing shall be acted upon by the court without proof of service thereof.

It appears that the Motion to Release Bond was defective as it did not have a proper notice of hearing. The date and time of the hearing were not specified. Neither complainant nor his counsel was furnished a copy thereof. These were never controverted by respondent judge. 

A motion without notice of hearing is pro forma, a mere scrap of paper. It presents no question which the court could decide. The court has no reason to consider it and the clerk has no right to receive it. The rationale behind the rule is plain: unless the movant sets the time and place of hearing, the court will be unable to determine whether the adverse party agrees or objects to the motion, and if he objects, to hear him on his objection, since the rules themselves do not fix any period within which he may file his reply or opposition. The objective of the rule is to avoid a capricious change of mind in order to provide due process to both parties and ensure impartiality in the trial.

Also, without proof of service to the adverse party, a motion is nothing but an empty formality deserving no judicial cognizance. The rule mandates that the same shall not be acted upon by the court. Proof of service is mandatory.

Clearly, respondent judge had ignored a fundamental rule. He acted too precipitately in granting defendant’s motion despite the absence of the requirements as above prescribed. As a judge, Judge Aguirre is expected to keep abreast of laws and prevailing jurisprudence. Unfamiliarity with the rules is a sign of incompetence. Basic rules must be at the palm of his hand. A judge must be acquainted with legal norms and precepts as well as with procedural rules. When a judge displays utter lack of familiarity with the rules, he erodes the confidence of the public in the courts. Ignorance of the law by a judge can easily be the mainspring of injustice.