A.M. No. RTJ-05-1915 ; May 6, 2005
Alfero C. Bagano, complainant, vs. Judge Agapito L. Hontanosas, Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 16, Cebu City, respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Alfero C. Bagano was the prevailing party in a forcible entry case involving Lot No. 7708. The defendant, Claudio Reyes, later filed a “Motion to Cancel Statutory Lien” on the title covering the lot before respondent Judge Agapito L. Hontanosas. Respondent denied this motion by Order dated June 6, 2000. However, just three days later, on June 9, 2000, respondent issued another Order granting the same motion without any motion for reconsideration having been filed. This led to the cancellation of the annotations and the issuance of new titles.
Upon learning of the June 9, 2000 Order, complainant successfully secured a Petition for Relief from Judgment, which became final. Complainant then filed a “Motion to Cancel Subsequent Titles” derived from the cancelled lien. Respondent took four months to deny this motion and another five months to deny the subsequent motion for reconsideration. This prompted the administrative complaint for gross ignorance of the law, undue delay, and grave abuse of discretion.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Judge is administratively liable for gross ignorance of the law or procedure and undue delay in rendering an order.

RULING

Yes, respondent is administratively liable. The Court found respondent guilty of gross ignorance of the law or procedure for his June 9, 2000 Order. Granting a motion he had just denied, without any intervening motion for reconsideration and without setting the matter for hearing as required by the rules, constituted a blatant disregard of basic procedural norms. A judge is presumed to know that a motion cannot be granted absent a formal motion for reconsideration and that motions that do not contain a notice of hearing are considered mere scraps of paper. His act of effectively reversing himself sua sponte was arbitrary.
Furthermore, respondent committed undue delay in resolving the “Motion to Cancel Subsequent Titles” and the subsequent motion for reconsideration, violating the prescribed periods under the rules. While the Court noted that not every error in judgment warrants administrative sanction, respondent’s actions demonstrated a patent disregard of simple, well-known rules amounting to gross ignorance. Considering that respondent had already been dismissed from service in a separate administrative case, the Court imposed a fine of Twenty Thousand Pesos (P20,000.00) for the infractions in this case.