RULE 15, Sec 4, 5

SPOUSES CRISOLOGO vs. JUDGE GEORGE E. OMELIO

The Facts

Complainant-spouses Crisologo aver that they are plaintiffs in a collection suit raffled to RTC,
Branch 15, Davao City. They obtained a favourable judgment which had become final and
executory. Accordingly, a Writ of Execution was issued for the satisfaction of said final judgment.
Notice of Sale and publication requirements were allegedly complied with. The Notice included
two (2) properties covered by Transfer Certificates of Title (TCTs) which are now in the name of
JEWM but were formerly owned by SO KENG KOC and attached by another court order as early
as 1998 in a civil case;

JEWM filed an Affidavit of Third Party Claim and a Motion to Exclude the Subject Properties from
the Auction Sale, but were all denied by RTC, Branch 15 in its Order dated August 25, 2010.
Instead, the court directed the sheriff to proceed with the sale on August 26, 2010;

The auction sale was, however, rescheduled to October 7, 2010 because the sheriff, accordingly,
orally demanded the posting of a bond.

JEWM filed a motion to render judgment based on the pleadings on 6 December 2010. The
annotations on the copy furnished portion of the motion show that service was made to
the Register of Deeds of Davao City and Sheriff Robert Medialdea on 6 December
2010. The hearing was conducted on 8 December 2010. Judge Omelio granted JEWMs
motion on 13 December 2010.

They prayed that respondent Judge be held administratively liable, his actions allegedly
constitute gross ignorance of the law, grave abuse of discretion and gross dereliction of
duty and manifest bias.

ISSUE: WON Judge Omelio is guilty of gross ignorance of the law for granting a motion in
violation of the three-day rule under Section 4, Rule 15 of the Rules of Court.

RULING: We find Judge Omelio guilty of gross ignorance of the law for the following acts: (a)
granting a contentious motion that was in violation of the three-day notice rule;

Sps. Crisologo claim that JEWM filed a Motion to Render Judgment Granting Plaintiff the Relief
Prayed for with Memorandum Attached on 6 December 2010. The motion, however, was heard
on 8 December 2010, in violation of the three-day notice requirement.

Section 4, Rule 15 of the Rules of Court provides for the procedure in hearing motions:

SEC. 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.

Every written motion required to be heard and the notice of the hearing thereof shall be served in
such a manner as to ensure its receipt by the other party at least three (3) days before the date
of hearing, unless the court for good cause sets the hearing on shorter notice.

This provision mandates service to the adverse party at least three days before the hearing date
of a written motion required to be heard and its notice of hearing.
In Philippine Advertising Counselors v. Revilla, the Court held that the motion for reconsideration
which contained a defective notice of hearing did not suspend the running of the period to
appeal, and the trial court exceeded its jurisdiction when it granted the defective motion:

Finally, Section 4, Rule 15 of the Rules of Court provides that notice of a motion shall be served
by the applicant to all parties concerned, at least three (3) days before the hearing thereof,
together with a copy of the motion, and of any affidavits and other papers accompanying it; and
Section 5 of the same Rule requires the notice to be directed to the parties concerned and to
state the time and place for the hearing of the motion. A motion which fails to comply with these
requirements is nothing but a useless piece of paper.

In J. King & Sons Co., Inc. v. Judge Hontanosas, Jr., the Court suspended respondent judge for
three months without pay, and declared him guilty, among others, of gross ignorance of the law
for granting a motion that was in violation of the three-day notice rule.

We agree with the Investigating Justices finding that respondent is guilty of gross ignorance of
the law for not holding a full-blown hearing on the motion to lift attachment and for violating the
three-day notice rule.

It has been oft repeated that judges cannot be held to account or answer criminally, civilly or
administratively for an erroneous judgment or decision rendered by him in good faith, or in the
absence of fraud, dishonesty or corruption. However, it has also been held that when the law
violated is elementary, a judge is subject to disciplinary action. The principles of due notice
and hearing are so basic that respondents inability to accord a litigant their right thereto
cannot be excused. In this case, we believe that respondents actuations reek of malice and
bad faith. Thus, we find respondent guilty of gross ignorance of the law for violating the three-day
notice rule and failing to give herein complainant due notice and the opportunity to be heard on
the matter as mandated by Section 12, Rule 57 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.

In this case, JEWM filed a motion to render judgment based on the pleadings on 6 December
2010. The annotations on the copy furnished portion of the motion show that service was made
to the Register of Deeds of Davao City and Sheriff Robert Medialdea on 6 December 2010. The
hearing was conducted on 8 December 2010. Judge Omelio granted JEWMs motion on 13
December 2010.

A motion to render judgment based on the pleadings is a litigious motion because the
grant of such motion will eliminate trial and the case will be considered submitted for
decision. For this reason, service to the adverse parties of such litigious motion should be made
at least three days before the date of the hearing, as mandated by Section 4, Rule 15 of the
Rules of Court.

In this case, Judge Omelio granted a contentious motion which contained a defective notice of
hearing. The notice of hearing was defective because it was only served two (2) days
before the hearing date, instead of the mandatory three-day notice rule. Such motion
should have been considered a mere scrap of paper. Judge Omelio should have denied
the motion on the ground that it violated the three-day notice rule, without prejudice to
JEWMs re-filing of said motion in accordance with the Rules.

In Almeron v. Judge Sardido, the Court held:

Members of the judiciary are supposed to exhibit more than just a cursory acquaintance with the
statutes and procedural rules, more so with legal principles and rules so elementary and basic
that not to know them, or to act as if one does not know them, constitutes gross ignorance of the
law.
In this case, Judge Omelio granted a litigious motion, in violation of the elementary three-
day notice rule on motions. Applying J. King & Sons Co., Inc. v. Judge Hontanosas,
Jr., Judge Omelio is considered guilty of gross ignorance of the law for granting the
defective motion. The three-day notice rule on motions is so elementary, that not knowing
and observing it, especially in litigious and contentious motions, constitute gross
ignorance of the law. For this reason, we find Judge Omelio guilty of gross ignorance of the law
for granting a contentious motion that was in violation of the three-day notice rule on motions.