Adm. Matter No. MTJ-04-1533; January 28, 2008
Vicky C. Mabanto, petitioner, vs. Judge Mamerto Y. Coliflores, respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Vicky Mabanto was the defendant in an ejectment case where judgment was rendered against her. She appealed and posted a supersedeas bond to stay execution. The Regional Trial Court later remanded the case for re-trial. Mabanto then sought to withdraw her bond, only to discover that respondent Judge Mamerto Coliflores had already granted the plaintiffs’ ex-parte motion to withdraw the rental deposit from that bond in an order dated September 23, 1996. Complainant alleged she and her counsel were never notified of this motion or the order, thus the release was concealed from them.
Respondent judge, in his comment, denied concealment, claiming complainant’s counsel was furnished a copy of the order. He justified the release by stating the bond would be applied to back rentals owed to the plaintiffs, noting that a portion was returned to the court. However, the Clerk of Court and a court interpreter confirmed that due to inadvertence, no notice of the motion or order was ever sent to the complainant or her counsel.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Judge Mamerto Y. Coliflores is administratively liable for granting the ex-parte motion to withdraw the deposit from the supersedeas bond without proper notice to the adverse party.

RULING

Yes, respondent is guilty of gross ignorance of the law. The Supreme Court emphasized that a supersedeas bond in ejectment cases is security for the judgment on appeal and must be held until final disposition, as mandated by Section 19(2) and (3), Rule 70 of the Rules of Court. The rules allow a plaintiff to withdraw deposited money only if the defendant agrees or fails to oppose the motion, a safeguard to prevent prejudice to the defendant whose liability is still in question.
The Court found that respondent judge erred in granting the ex-parte motion because there was no proof of service of notice to the complainant. Section 4, Rule 13 requires service of pleadings to adverse parties, and a motion without such notice is a mere scrap of paper not entitled to judicial cognizance. By proceeding without ensuring proper notification, respondent displayed a lack of familiarity with these fundamental procedural rules, constituting gross ignorance of the law.
Considering the offense occurred prior to the 2001 amendment of Rule 140 which increased penalties, and absent any showing of malice or nefarious motive, the Court adopted the Office of the Court Administrator’s recommendation. Consistent with analogous precedents, a fine of P2,000.00, deductible from retirement benefits, was imposed.