G.R. No. RTJ-97-1385 January 8, 1998
RAMON T. ARDOSA, complainant, vs. JUDGE LOLITA O. GAL-LANG and CLERK OF COURT NENITA R. GRIJALDO, Branch 44, Regional Trial Court, Manila, respondents.

FACTS

Complainant Ramon T. Ardosa was the complainant in Criminal Case No. 95-146559 for illegal recruitment assigned to respondent Judge Lolita O. Gal-Lang. The prosecutor initially recommended bail but later changed it to “no bail.” A warrant of arrest was issued against the accused on December 11, 1995. On December 13, 1995, the accused filed an Urgent Motion to Recall the Warrant of Arrest. Respondent judge heard the motion on the same day it was filed. Complainant, who was in court to file other motions, was persuaded by respondent Clerk of Court Nenita R. Grijaldo to attend the hearing. Complainant requested a resetting as he had no prior notice and his counsel was absent, but the judge proceeded. On December 14, 1995, the judge granted the motion and recalled the warrant. Complainant filed a motion for reconsideration on December 20, 1995, heard on December 22, 1995. An order dated December 22, 1995, denying the motion, was received by complainant only on January 18, 1996, leading him to accuse the judge of antedating the order. Respondents argued the hearing was urgent, the prosecutor was present, and the order was prepared on December 22 but mailed on January 3, 1996, as the judge went on leave. The criminal case was later dismissed based on a resolution from the Secretary of Justice.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Judge Lolita O. Gal-Lang committed abuse of discretion and misconduct for hearing a motion on the same day it was filed without proper notice and for allegedly antedating an order, and whether respondent Clerk of Court Nenita R. Grijaldo committed misconduct.

RULING

The Court found respondent Judge Lolita O. Gal-Lang GUILTY of misconduct. She committed an abuse of discretion by hearing the Urgent Motion to Recall the Warrant of Arrest on the same day it was filed, violating the three-day notice rule under Rule 15, §4 of the Rules of Court, without showing good cause. The presence of the public prosecutor did not excuse the lack of sufficient preparation time. The matter was not urgent as a related hearing was set for the next day. The allegation of antedating the December 22, 1995 order was not fully substantiated, and no undue delay in its resolution was found. The Court REPRIMANDED Judge Gal-Lang with a warning. The complaint against respondent Clerk of Court Nenita R. Grijaldo was DISMISSED for lack of merit, as her act of persuading complainant to attend the hearing did not constitute misconduct.