ALFERO C. BAGANO, COMPLAINANT, VS. JUDGE AGAPITO L. HONTANOSAS, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT (RTC), BRANCH 16, CEBU CITY, RESPONDENT.

Bagano versus Hontanosas

The Case

This is an administrative case in which Alfero C. Bagano charges Judge Agapito L. Hontanosas, Presiding Judge of Branch 16 of the Regional Trial Court of Cebu City, with gross ignorance of the law and procedure, undue delay in rendering an order, and grave abuse of discretion. The complaint grows out of a forcible entry dispute over a parcel of land and the judge's handling of a motion to cancel a statutory lien annotated on the covering certificate of title. The case matters because it fixes the line between an erroneous judicial ruling, which must be corrected through judicial remedies and not by discipline, and an elementary blunder in procedure, which can make a judge administratively liable even without malice.

Procedural History

The complainant filed a verified complaint dated March 3, 2003 before the Supreme Court, through the Office of the Court Administrator. The Office of the Court Administrator submitted a report dated October 17, 2003 finding the respondent guilty of gross ignorance of the law and procedure and of undue delay in rendering a decision or order, and recommending that the complaint be re-docketed as a regular administrative matter and that the respondent be directed to pay a fine of 20,000 pesos with a stern warning. By Resolution of December 8, 2003, the Supreme Court required the parties to manifest whether they were submitting the case for resolution on the basis of the pleadings and records already filed. In separate manifestations, both parties submitted the case for resolution on that basis. The case was thus resolved by the Supreme Court as an original administrative matter.

Facts

In a forcible entry case filed by the complainant against Claudio Reyes and others over Lot Number 7708, the Municipal Trial Court of Talisay, Cebu rendered judgment on November 27, 1995 in the complainant's favor. On May 25, 2000, Reyes filed before the Cebu Regional Trial Court a Motion to Cancel Statutory Lien, praying for the cancellation of certain annotations on Transfer Certificate of Title Number 112336, which appeared to cover Lot Number 7708. Reyes alleged that the annotations were done illegally because the lot had long ceased to be public land and ownership had passed to Arcadio Reyes, of whom he was the sole heir.

On June 6, 2000, the respondent judge, by order of even date, denied the Motion to Cancel Statutory Lien. Three days later, on June 9, 2000, he issued another order granting the very same motion, without any motion for reconsideration having been filed and without setting the motion for hearing or posting notices of hearing. The title was later cancelled and new titles were issued, and further sales produced still more titles.

On learning of the June 9, 2000 order, the complainant filed a Petition for Relief from Judgment, which the respondent granted by order of September 14, 2001, and which became final and executory on October 13, 2001. The complainant then filed a Motion to Cancel Subsequent Titles, which the respondent denied by order of June 11, 2002, and he denied the motion for reconsideration by order of January 13, 2003. The complainant alleged that his Motion to Cancel Subsequent Titles was resolved only after four months from submission, and his motion for reconsideration only after five months. Hence the administrative complaint.

Issues

• Whether or not the respondent judge is administratively liable for gross ignorance of the law and procedure in granting the Motion to Cancel Statutory Lien without setting it for hearing and without notice to the complainant.
• Whether or not the respondent judge is liable for undue delay in resolving the pending incidents beyond the period fixed by the rules.
• Whether or not the respondent judge is liable for gross ignorance of the law in denying the Motion to Cancel Subsequent Titles.

Applicable Provisions

Section 4 of Rule 15 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, on the hearing of motions, provides:

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.

This is the elementary rule the respondent disregarded when he granted the motion to cancel the lien without any hearing or notice to the complainant, who was the lawful possessor of the lot.

Section 4 of Rule 37 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, on the resolution of a motion for reconsideration, provides:

Section 4. Resolution of motion. — A motion for reconsideration shall be resolved within thirty (30) days from the time it is submitted for resolution.

This fixes the period whose breach gave rise to the charge of undue delay, which the respondent did not deny or explain.

Section 11 of Rule 140, as amended by Administrative Matter Number 01-8-10-SC, on sanctions for a less serious charge, provides:

B. If the respondent is guilty of a less serious charge, any of the following sanctions shall be imposed: Suspension from office without salary and other benefits for not less than one (1) nor more than three (3) months; or A fine of more than 10,000 pesos but not exceeding 20,000 pesos.

This governs the penalty for undue delay, a less serious charge, committed in 2002 after the amendment took effect.

Section 10 of Rule 140, before its amendment, on sanctions for a serious charge, provides:

A. If the respondent is found culpable of a serious charge, any of the following sanctions may be imposed: Dismissal from service, with forfeiture of benefits except accrued leaves, and disqualification from reinstatement or appointment to any public office including a government-owned and controlled corporation; Suspension for three (3) months without salary or benefits; or A fine of not less than 20,000 pesos but not more than 40,000 pesos.

This governs the penalty for gross ignorance of the law, a serious charge, because the act was committed on June 9, 2000, before the amendment, and the amended penalties cannot apply retroactively.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held the respondent liable for gross ignorance of the law and procedure. It laid down the basic rule that all written motions should be heard, excepted only are non-litigious motions, those which may be acted upon by the court without prejudice to the rights of the adverse party. The Motion to Cancel Statutory Lien was not a non-litigious motion, since the complainant was the lawful possessor of the lot, and it therefore required a hearing and notice. The Court acknowledged the general rule that a judge is administratively liable for gross ignorance of the law only when the assailed act is contrary to law and is motivated by bad faith, fraud, dishonesty, or corruption. But it carved out the controlling qualification: when the law or rule is so elementary, as the rule requiring written motions to be heard, not knowing it constitutes gross ignorance of the law even in the absence of malicious intent.

On the second issue, the Court held the respondent liable for undue delay. He neither denied the delay nor advanced any reason for it, and so he must be faulted. Undue delay in rendering a decision or order is a less serious charge.

On the third issue, the Court held that no liability lies for the denial of the Motion to Cancel Subsequent Titles. The complainant should have availed of an ordinary or extraordinary judicial remedy to seek its reversal. As the Court put it, quoting established doctrine:

It is the established doctrine and policy of this Court that an administrative action is not the appropriate remedy for every irregular or erroneous order or decision issued by a judge where a judicial remedy is available, such as a motion for reconsideration, an appeal, or a petition for certiorari.

To hold a judge administratively accountable for every erroneous ruling would be harassment and would render judicial office untenable, for no one called upon to try facts or interpret the law can be infallible in judgment.

Doctrine

• Every written motion must be set for hearing and served on the adverse party, except a non-litigious motion that the court may act upon without prejudicing the rights of the adverse party, under Section 4 of Rule 15.
• Gross ignorance of the law generally requires bad faith, fraud, dishonesty, or corruption, but when the violated rule is so elementary, ignorance of it is gross ignorance even without malicious intent.
• A motion for reconsideration must be resolved within thirty days from submission under Section 4 of Rule 37, and failure to do so, unexplained, is undue delay, a less serious charge.
• An administrative complaint is not a substitute for judicial remedies; an erroneous order correctible by motion for reconsideration, appeal, or certiorari is not a ground for discipline.
• Penalties under Rule 140 apply prospectively, so the rule in force at the time of the act governs the sanction.

Disposition

The Court found Judge Agapito L. Hontanosas guilty of gross ignorance of the law or procedure and undue delay in rendering a decision or order, and fined him 20,000 pesos, noting that he had already been dismissed from the service in a separate administrative case.

Remember This

The one line to memorize: all written motions must be heard, and not knowing so elementary a rule is gross ignorance of the law even without malice. Examiners use this case to test the distinction between a correctible erroneous ruling, which is not a disciplinary matter, and an elementary procedural blunder, which is.