31. ALFREDO G. BOISER vs. JUDGE JOSE Y. AGUIRRE, JR.

,
RTJ-04-1886; May 16,2005
Chico-Nazario

Facts: Complainant Alfredo Boiser was the plaintiff in an ejectment case filed before the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) which favored the comolainant
The case was appealed to the RTC. Defendant-appellant Salvador Julleza filed a motion to release bond on the ground that the MTC had already resolved
the writ of preliminary injunction without mentioning the applicants liability. RTC granted the motion.
Complainant alleged that the issuance by respondent judge is indicative of his ignorance of the law considering that the motion did not state that he was
furnished a copy of the motion thereby depriving him of his right to due process. He also averred that the motion was a mere scrap of paper for failure to
state the time and date of hearing. He further alleged that respondent manifested gross ignorance when he resolved to grant the motion to release the
injunction bond considering that the same was meant to answer for damages that he may suffer due to defendants continued illegal possession of the
land.

OCA required respondent to file his comment in which he maintained that the filing of the administrative complaint against him is hasty and uncalled for.
He said there must have been a miscommunication between the complainant and his counsel because had either of them exerted effort to find out the
result of the appealed case, they would have discovered that he affirmed in toto the decision of the lower court in favor of the complainant. Complainant
filed a motion to withdraw complaint.
OCA submitted its recommendation, recommended to the SC the admin case be RE-DOCKETED as a regular administrative matter and that respondent
Judge Jose Y. Aguirre, Jr., be FINED in the amount of P21,000.00 for Gross Ignorance of the Law and be STERNLY WARNED that a repetition of the
same or similar acts will be dealt with more severely.
SC referred the case to Court of Appeals Justice Monina Zenarosa for investigation, report and investigation.

Consequently, the case was scheduled for preliminary conference on 17 February 2005. On the said date, complainant Alfredo Boiser, with his counsel
Atty. Salvador Sabio, and respondent judge appeared. During the preliminary conference, Atty. Sabio manifested that the complainant had already filed
his motion to withdraw the complaint and was no longer interested in pursuing the case. On the other hand, respondent judge manifested he had retired
from the service as of 01 November 2004 and is now appearing as a private citizen. He further informed the court that he was submitting the case without
further comment as he had already filed his comment to the complaint.CA dismissed the complaint.
Hence this petition

Issue: Whether Respondent Judge is liable relative to the lack of notice of hearing and proof of service of the questioned motion?

Ruling: Yes. The Rules of Court requires that every motion must be set for hearing by the movant, except those motions which the court may act upon
without prejudicing the rights of the adverse party. The notice of hearing must be addressed to all parties and must specify the time and date of the hearing,
with proof of service. Sections 4, 5 and 6 of Rule 15 of the 1997 Rules on Civil Procedure provide:
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.
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.
SEC. 5. Notice of hearing.- The notice of hearing shall be addressed to all parties concerned, and shall specify the time and date of the hearing which
must not be later than ten (10) days after the filing of the motion.
SEC. 6. Proof of service necessary.- No written motion set for hearing shall be acted upon by the court without proof of service thereof.

It appears that the Motion to Release Bond was defective as it did not have a proper notice of hearing. The date and time of the hearing were not
specified. Neither complainant nor his counsel was furnished a copy thereof. These were never controverted by respondent judge.
A motion without notice of hearing is pro forma, a mere scrap of paper. It presents no question which the court could decide. The court has no reason
to consider it and the clerk has no right to receive it. The rationale behind the rule is plain: unless the movant sets the time and place of hearing, the court
will be unable to determine whether the adverse party agrees or objects to the motion, and if he objects, to hear him on his objection, since the rules
themselves do not fix any period within which he may file his reply or opposition. The objective of the rule is to avoid a capricious change of mind in order
to provide due process to both parties and ensure impartiality in the trial.
Also, without proof of service to the adverse party, a motion is nothing but an empty formality deserving no judicial cognizance.[16]The rule mandates
that the same shall not be acted upon by the court. Proof of service is mandatory.
As can be seen the law involved is simple and elementary, lack of conversance therewith constitutes gross ignorance of the law. Judges are expected
to exhibit more than just cursory acquaintance with statutes and procedural laws. They must know the laws and apply them properly in all good faith.
Judicial competence requires no less.

Clearly, respondent judge had ignored a fundamental rule. He acted too precipitately in granting defendants motion despite the absence of the
requirements as above prescribed. As a judge, Judge Aguirre is expected to keep abreast of laws and prevailing jurisprudence. [19] Unfamiliarity with the
rules is a sign of incompetence. Basic rules must be at the palm of his hand. A judge must be acquainted with legal norms and precepts as well as with
procedural rules
32. ISABEL N. GUZMAN, Petitioner, v. ANIANO N. GUZMAN and PRIMITIVA G. MONTEALTO, Respondents.
G.R. NO. 172588 : March 13, 2013
BRION, J.:
FACTS: Petitioner filed, with MTC, a complaint for ejectment against her children, respondents Aniano N. Guzman and Primitiva G. Montealto. MTC
found the petitioner to be the lawful owner of the land with a right to its possession since the respondents had no vested right to the land since they are
merely the petitioner's children to whom no ownership or possessory rights have passed and that no forum shopping was committed since she asserted
ownership only to establish her right of possession, and the lower courts can provisionally resolve the issue of ownership to determine who has the
better right of possession.

The respondents appealed to the RTC which ruled for the respondents and set aside the MTC ruling. It took into account the petitioner's transfer of
rights in the respondents' favor which, it held, could not be unilaterally revoked without a court action.

Petitioner received a copy of the RTC decision. Petitioner filed her first motion for reconsideration which the RTC denied the petitioner's motion for
reconsideration for lack of the required notice of hearing. Petitioner filed a second motion for reconsideration which the RTC denied for having been filed
out of time. Petitioner filed a third motion for reconsideration which the RTC denied with finality.

On August 8, 2005, the petitioner filed a Rule 65 petition for certiorari with the CA dismissed the petition. The CA noted that a Rule 42 petition for review,
not a Rule 65 petition for certiorari, was the proper remedy to assail an RTC decision rendered in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction. It found that
the petitioner lost her chance to appeal when she filed a second motion for reconsideration, a prohibited pleading under Section 5, Rule 37 of the Rules
of Court. The CA also held that the petitioner cannot validly claim that the respondents occupied the properties through mere tolerance since they were
co-owners of the property as compulsory heirs of Alfonso Guzman, the original owner.

When the CA denied the motion for reconsideration that followed, the petitioner filed the present Rule 45 petition

ISSUE: Was CA correct in dismissing petitioner's petition for certiorari for being the wrong mode of appeal and for lack of merit?

RULING: YES. The petitioner availed of the wrong remedy The petitioner's resort to a Rule 65 petition for certiorari to assail the RTC decision and
orders is misplaced. When the RTC issued its decision and orders, it did so in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction; the proper remedy therefrom is a
Rule 42 petition for review. Instead, the petitioner filed a second motion for reconsideration and thereby lost her right to appeal; a second motion for
reconsideration being a prohibited pleading pursuant to Section 5, Rule 37 of the Rules of Court. The petitioner's subsequent motions for reconsideration
should be considered as mere scraps of paper, not having been filed at all, and unable to toll the reglementary period for an appeal.

The RTC decision became final and executory after fifteen (15) days from receipt of the denial of the first motion for reconsideration. It is elementary that
once a decision becomes final and executory, it is "immutable and unalterable, and can no longer be modified in any respect, even if the modification is
meant to correct what is perceived to be an erroneous conclusion of fact or law, and regardless of whether the modification is attempted to be made by
the court rendering it or by the highest court of the land." Thus, the RTC decision, even if allegedly erroneous, can no longer be modified.

Apparently, to resurrect her lost appeal, the petitioner filed a Rule 65 petition for certiorari, imputing grave abuse of discretion on the RTC for deciding
the case against her. Certiorari, by its very nature, is proper only when appeal is not available to the aggrieved party; the remedies of appeal
and certiorari are mutually exclusive, not alternative or successive. It cannot substitute for a lost appeal, especially if one's own negligence or error in
one's choice of remedy occasioned such loss or lapse.

Neither was there grave abuse of discretion. It should be noted that as a legal recourse, certiorari is a limited form of review. It is restricted to resolving
errors of jurisdiction and grave abuse of discretion, not errors of judgment. Indeed, as long as the lower courts act within their jurisdiction, alleged errors
committed in the exercise of their discretion will amount to mere errors of judgment correctable by an appeal or a petition for review.

The RTC did not also commit a grave abuse of discretion in strictly enforcing the requirement of notice of hearing. The requirement of notice of hearing
is an integral component of procedural due process that seeks to avoid "surprises that may be sprung upon the adverse party, who must be given time
to study and meet the arguments in the motion before a resolution by the court." Given the purpose of the requirement, a motion unaccompanied by a
notice of hearing is considered a mere scrap of paper that does not toll the running of the period to appeal. This requirement of notice of hearing equally
applies to the petitioner's motion for reconsideration. The petitioner's alleged absence of counsel is not a valid excuse or reason for non-compliance
with the rules.

Ejectment cases are summary proceedings intended to provided an expeditious means of protecting actual possession or right of possession of
property. Title is not involved, hence, it is a special civil action with a special procedure. The only issue to be resolved in ejectment cases is the question
of entitlement to the physical or material possession of the premises or possession de facto. Thus, any ruling on the question of ownership is only
provisional, made solely for the purpose of determining who is entitled to possession de facto. Accordingly, any ruling on the validity of the petitioner's
transfer of rights is provisional and should be resolved in a proper proceeding.

WHEREFORE, we hereby DENY the appeal. The February 3, 2006 decision and the April 17, 2006 resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA- G.R. SP
No. 90799 are AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioner Isabel N. Guzman.
33. SIMON A. FLORES, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
G.R. No. 181354 February 27, 2013
MENDOZA, J.:
FACTS: Flores was charged with the crime of Homicide in an Information, dated July 9, 1991, filed before the Sandiganbayan which reads:

That on or about the 15th day of August, 1989, at nighttime, in the Municipality of Alaminos, Province of Laguna, Philippines, and within
the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, a public officer, being then the Barangay Chairman of San Roque,
Alaminos, Laguna, while in the performance of his official functions and committing the offense in relation to his office, did then and
there willfully, unlawfully, feloniously and with intent to kill, shoot one JESUS AVENIDO with an M-16 Armalite Rifle, thereby inflicting
upon him several gunshot wounds in different parts of his body, which caused his instantaneous death, to the damage and prejudice
of the heirs of said JESUS AVENIDO.

CONTRARY TO LAW.

During his arraignment, on August 26, 1991, Flores pleaded Not Guilty and waived the pre-trial. Thereafter, the prosecution presented four (4)
witnesses, namely: Paulito Duran, one of the visitors (Duran); Gerry Avenido (Gerry), son of the victim; Elisa Avenido (Elisa), wife of the victim; and Dr.
Ruben Escueta, the physician who performed the autopsy on the cadaver of the victim, Jesus Avenido (Jesus).

For its part, the defense presented as witnesses, the accused Flores himself; his companion-members of the Civilian Action Force Group Unit (CAFGU),
Romulo Alquizar and Maximo H. Manalo; and Dr. Rene Bagamasbad, resident physician of San Pablo City District Hospital

After due proceedings, the Sandiganbayan issued the assailed decision finding Flores guilty of the offense charged. The Sandiganbayan rejected Flores’
claim that the shooting was justified for failure to prove self-defense. It gave credence to the consistent testimonies of the prosecution witnesses that
Flores shot Jesus with an armalite rifle (M16) which resulted in his death. According to the Sandiganbayan, there was no reason to doubt the testimonies
of the said witnesses who appeared to have no ill motive to falsely testify against Flores. Sandiganbayan found him guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

Flores filed a motion for the reconsideration. As the motion did not contain any notice of hearing, the Prosecution filed its Motion to Expunge from the
Records Accused’s Motion for Reconsideration which was denied for being a mere scrap of paper as it did not contain a notice of hearing and disposed
as follows:
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Motion for Reconsideration of accused Flores is considered pro forma which did not toll the running of the
period to appeal, and thus, the assailed judgment of this Court has become FINAL and EXECUTORY.
SO ORDERED.

Hence, Flores filed the present petition

ISSUE: Was the outright denial of Flores’ motion for reconsideration by the Sandiganbayan on mere technicality amount to a violation of his right to due
process?

RULING:

No.. Section 5, Rule 15 of the Rules of Court reads:

SECTION 5. Notice of hearing. – The notice of hearing shall be addressed to all parties concerned, and shall specify the time and date of the hearing
which must not be later than ten (10) days after the filing of the motion.
Section 2, Rule 37 provides:
SEC. 2. Contents of motion for new trial or reconsideration and notice thereof. – The motion shall be made in writing stating the ground or grounds
therefore, a written notice of which shall be served by the movant on the adverse party.
A pro forma motion for new trial or reconsideration shall not toll the reglementary period of appeal.

Section 4, Rule 121 states:

SEC. 4. Form of motion and notice to the prosecutor. – The motion for a new trial or reconsideration shall be in writing and shall state the grounds on
which it is based. X x x. Notice of the motion for new trial or reconsideration shall be given to the prosecutor.

As correctly stated by the Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP), Sec. 2 of Rule 37 and Sec. 4 of Rule 121 should be read in conjunction with Sec. 5 of
Rule 15 of the Rules of Court. Basic is the rule that every motion must be set for hearing by the movant except for those motions which the court may act
upon without prejudice to the rights of the adverse party. The notice of hearing must be addressed to all parties and must specify the time and date of
the hearing, with proof of service.

This Court has indeed held, time and again, that under Sections 4 and 5 of Rule 15 of the Rules of Court, the requirement is mandatory. Failure to
comply with the requirement renders the motion defective. "As a rule, a motion without a notice of hearing is considered pro forma and does not
affect the reglementary period for the appeal or the filing of the requisite pleading."

In this case, as Flores committed a procedural lapse in failing to include a notice of hearing, his motion was a worthless piece of paper with no legal
effect whatsoever. Thus, his motion was properly dismissed by the Sandiganbayan.

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED.

SO ORDERED.
.