A.M. No. RTJ-04-1886 ; May 16, 2005
Alfredo G. Boiser, complainant, vs. Judge Jose Y. Aguirre, Jr., Regional Trial Court, Branch 55, Himamaylan City, Negros Occidental, respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Alfredo Boiser was the prevailing plaintiff in an ejectment case before the Municipal Trial Court (MTC). The defendant, Salvador Julleza, appealed to the Regional Trial Court (RTC) presided by respondent Judge Jose Y. Aguirre, Jr. During the pendency of the appeal, the defendant-appellant filed a “Motion to Release Bond,” arguing that the MTC decision had resolved the preliminary injunction without mentioning the applicant’s liability. The motion lacked a notice of hearing and did not contain proof of service to the complainant. Respondent Judge granted the motion via an Order dated October 16, 2003.
Complainant filed an administrative charge for Gross Ignorance of the Law, alleging the grant of the motion deprived him of due process as it was a mere “scrap of paper” for lacking the requisite notice and proof of service. Respondent Judge, in his comment, noted he had later affirmed the MTC decision in favor of the complainant and suggested a miscommunication. The complainant subsequently filed a motion to withdraw his complaint, and respondent Judge retired from the judiciary on November 1, 2004.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Judge is administratively liable for Gross Ignorance of the Law for granting a motion that lacked a notice of hearing and proof of service.

RULING

Yes, respondent Judge is administratively liable. The Supreme Court emphasized that neither the complainant’s desistance nor the respondent’s retirement divests the Court of its jurisdiction to discipline members of the judiciary for acts committed in office. The legal logic is anchored on the mandatory nature of procedural rules governing motions. The Rules of Court require that a motion must contain a notice of hearing specifying the time and date, addressed to all parties, with proof of service. A motion lacking these is considered a mere “scrap of paper” which the court has no authority to act upon. By granting the defective motion, respondent Judge exhibited a fundamental disregard for these basic procedural rules.
Such ignorance of elementary law constitutes gross ignorance, as judges are bound to know and apply these rules diligently. The Court found the act to be a less serious charge under the Rules of Court. Considering the respondent had already retired, the Court imposed a fine of Five Thousand Pesos (P5,000.00), to be deducted from his retirement benefits, with a stern warning. The penalty serves the paramount interest of preserving public confidence in the judiciary by upholding exacting standards of competence, regardless of a judge’s subsequent retirement.