Mabanto v. Coliflores
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainant Vicky Mabanto was the defendant in an ejectment case. After judgment was rendered against her, she appealed to the Regional Trial Court (RTC) and posted a P45,000 supersedeas bond to stay execution. The RTC later remanded the case to the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) for re-trial. Complainant's counsel filed a motion to withdraw the supersedeas bond. Procedural History: Complainant learned that the respondent judge, in an Order dated September 23, 1996, granted the plaintiffs' ex-parte motion to withdraw the rental deposit under the bond and released it to the plaintiffs. Complainant alleged that she and her counsel were not notified of this motion or the approval of the order, and that the respondent judge concealed these from them. The respondent judge denied concealment, stating that complainant's counsel was furnished a copy of the order and explained that the release was directed because the bond would be applied to back rentals. He also noted that P15,000 was returned to the court, remaining as the complainant's supersedeas bond. Complainant insisted they never received notice and that the judge had no basis for the order as the RTC remanded the case for re-trial, meaning the judgment was not affirmed. The Petition: An administrative complaint was filed against Judge Mamerto Y. Coliflores for Serious Misconduct, Inefficiency, Gross Ignorance of the Law, and Violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 in connection with the supersedeas bond.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent judge committed gross ignorance of the law in granting the ex-parte motion to withdraw the supersedeas bond deposit without notice to the complainant and her counsel. Whether the respondent judge concealed the plaintiffs' motion to release the deposit under the supersedeas bond.
Ruling
The Supreme Court found the respondent judge guilty of gross ignorance of the law and imposed a fine of P2,000 to be deducted from his retirement benefits. The Court agreed with the recommendation of the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA).
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of gross ignorance of the law in granting the ex-parte motion to withdraw the supersedeas bond deposit without notice: The Court held that a supersedeas bond in ejectment cases is conditioned upon the performance of the judgment or order appealed from if affirmed by the appellate court, and thus should subsist as security. Section 19(2)(3), Rule 70 of the Rules of Court requires that moneys deposited to stay execution shall be held until the final disposition of the appeal and disposed of according to the judgment. The plaintiff is allowed to withdraw only when the defendant agrees or fails to oppose the petition, to avoid damage to the defendant if the plaintiff's right to collect is in issue. In this case, the complainant failed to oppose the motion because she was not informed by the lower court. The Clerk of Court confirmed that the complainant was not notified of the motion and the order allowing the release. The court interpreter also confirmed that while she prepared the notice, it was not sent due to inadvertence. Section 4, Rule 13 of the Rules of Court mandates that adverse parties be served copies of pleadings and processes. A motion without a notice of hearing addressed to the parties is considered a mere scrap of paper. Citing Cui v. Madayag, the Court reiterated that motions without proof of service are not entitled to judicial cognizance. Therefore, without any proof of service upon the complainant, the respondent erred in granting the motion to withdraw the deposit under the bond, constituting gross ignorance of the law. The Court found no malice attended the respondent's action, and the offense occurred prior to the amendment of Rule 140 of the Rules of Court imposing heavier penalties for gross ignorance of the law. Consistent with previous rulings imposing a fine of P2,000 with a warning in similar cases where no nefarious motive was shown, the Court imposed the same penalty. On the issue of concealment of the plaintiffs' motion to release the deposit under the supersedeas bond: The Court addressed this issue together with the issue of gross ignorance of the law, as the lack of notice to the complainant effectively concealed the motion. The findings and conclusions regarding the lack of notice and the violation of procedural rules apply equally to this issue.
Main Doctrine
A judge commits gross ignorance of the law when granting a motion to withdraw a supersedeas bond deposit without proof of service of notice to the adverse party, violating the requirement for service of pleadings and processes upon adverse parties.