ATTY. FRANCISCO CARREON, COMPLAINANT, VS. JUDGE MANUEL B. ACOSTA, MUNICIPAL COURT, MAKATI, METRO MANILA, RESPONDENT.

Carreon versus Acosta

The Case

This is an administrative case against a municipal judge. Atty. Francisco Carreon, counsel for a defendant in an ejectment case, charged Judge Manuel B. Acosta of the Municipal Court of Makati with gross ignorance of the law and jurisprudence, and with serious misconduct, gross incompetence, and gross inefficiency in the performance of his duties. The charge arose from the judge's act of resolving a motion for reconsideration without setting it for hearing and without giving the adverse party a chance to be heard. The case matters because it fixes a simple, memorable rule on motions: a court may act on a motion without notice only when the rights of the adverse party are not affected.

Procedural History

The complaint was a verified letter-complaint filed directly with the Supreme Court and referred to the Court Administrator, who submitted a report and recommendation. The Supreme Court approved that report and recommendation and rendered its own resolution. There were no intermediate appellate proceedings; the matter reached the Court as an original administrative complaint against a judge of a municipal court.

Facts

Atty. Francisco Carreon was counsel for Sylvia Tankiang Manalo, the defendant in an ejectment case before the Municipal Court of Makati. In her answer, Manalo admitted occupying the property but set up the affirmative defense that she and her husband owned the bungalow, having built it at their own expense in 1956 under an agreement with the then registered owner of the land, her mother-in-law. She also alleged that the court had no jurisdiction over the action.

On July 17, 1978, after hearing the parties, Judge Acosta announced in open court that he would dismiss the case because the determination of the issue of ownership of the real property was beyond the jurisdiction of the court. On July 18, 1978, he rendered a decision dismissing the complaint for lack of jurisdiction, on the ground that the case could not be decided without resolving the issue of ownership.

On September 13, 1978, the plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration, contending that the issue was not one of ownership because the plaintiff was already the owner. The motion was not scheduled for hearing on a definite date or time; it merely asked the deputy clerk to set it for consideration at the earliest date possible. A copy was sent to Atty. Carreon by registered mail, and he received it on September 30, 1978, long after the judge had already acted on the motion. On September 18, 1978, the judge issued an order setting aside his decision and scheduling the case for hearing. The judge later admitted that he had erred in resolving the motion without setting it for hearing, explaining that he had acted immediately after reading the motion in the interest of deciding the case on the merits. Before the error was brought to his attention, however, the complainant had already filed this administrative case and withdrawn from the case.

Issues

• Whether or not a judge may act upon a motion for reconsideration without proof of service of notice thereof and without setting it for hearing, thereby depriving the adverse party of the opportunity to oppose and be heard.
• Whether or not the respondent judge is administratively liable for gross ignorance of the law and gross incompetence in acting on the motion in that manner.

Applicable Provisions

Section 6, Rule 15 of the New Rules of Court provides:

Proof of Service, to be filed with motion. No motion shall be acted upon by the court, without proof of service of the notice thereof, except when the court is satisfied that the rights of the adverse party or parties are not affected.

This is the provision the Court applied in finding that the motion should not have been acted upon without notice to the adverse party.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that no motion should be acted upon by the court without proof of service of notice thereof, together with a copy of the motion and other papers accompanying it, to all parties concerned, at least three days before the hearing, stating the time and place of hearing. When the motion does not comply with this requirement, it is not a motion; it presents no question which the court could decide, and the court acquires no jurisdiction to consider it. Notice of motion is necessary, and without proof of service a motion is nothing but a useless piece of paper which the clerk should not receive for filing.

On the second issue, the Court noted that the respondent admitted having erred in deciding the motion for reconsideration without giving the defendant a chance to be heard. The Court drew the precise line: it may not be error to pass upon a motion without giving notice to the adverse party if the ruling is unfavorable to the moving party, but if the rights of the adverse party will be affected, it is clearly an error to act upon the motion without giving him the opportunity to oppose and be heard. The Court approved the Court Administrator's report and recommendation.

Doctrine

A motion that lacks proof of service of notice, and that is not set for hearing with a statement of the time and place, is not a motion at all; it presents no question for the court, and the court acquires no jurisdiction to consider it. The exception in Section 6, Rule 15 is narrow: the court may act without proof of service only when it is satisfied that the rights of the adverse party are not affected. Acting on a motion without notice is not error when the ruling is unfavorable to the movant, but it is clearly an error when the rights of the adverse party will be affected, for that party must be given the opportunity to oppose and be heard.

Disposition

The complaint was sustained: respondent Judge Manuel B. Acosta was censured and warned that a repetition of the same or analogous incident would be dealt with more sternly.

Remember This

Memorize the line: without proof of service of notice, a motion is a useless piece of paper, and the court acquires no jurisdiction over it. Examiners use this case on the notice and hearing requirements for motions under Rule 15, and on the limits of a judge's good intentions when the rights of the adverse party are affected.