Case Digest: ALFERO C. BAGANO v. JUDGE AGAPITO L. HONTANOSAS and REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

ALFERO C. BAGANO v. JUDGE AGAPITO L. HONTANOSAS
and REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

458 SCRA 59 (2005)

To hold a judge administratively liable for gross ignorance of the law, the assailed act must not only be contrary to existing law or jurisprudence, but must also be motivated by bad faith, fraud, dishonesty or corruption on his part.

Complainant Alfero C. Bagano (Bagano) charges respondent Judge Agapito L. Hontanosas (Judge Hontanosas) for gross ignorance of the law and procedure, undue delay in rendering an order, and grave abuse of discretion. This complaint rooted from Judge Hontanosas’ sudden approval of an earlier denied ―Motion to Cancel Statutory Lien‖ by Claudio Reyes without even Reyes filing for motion for reconsideration and without setting the same for hearing and posting of notice of hearing in the locality where the lot is situated.

In addition to the complaint of Bagano, the ―Motion to Cancel Subsequent Titles‖ was resolved only after four (4) months following the submission of resolution when it should be within 30 days, while the motion for reconsideration was resolved only after five months following its submission. Finally, complainant faults Judge Hontanosas for grave abuse of discretion and gross ignorance of the law in denying his “Motion to Cancel Subsequent Certificates of Titles.” Judge Hontanosas thus asks for the dismissal of the complaint which, so he claims, was intended purely for harassment.

Both the Office of the Court Administrator and the Court found Judge Hontanosas guilty of the Gross Ignorance of the law.

ISSUES:

Whether or not respondent Judge Agapito L. Hontanos committed gross ignorance of the law and procedure, undue delay in rendering an order, and grave abuse of discretion

HELD:

It is a basic rule that all written motions should be heard. Excepted from this rule are non-litigious motions – those which may be acted upon by the court without prejudice the rights of the adverse party.

As correctly found by the OCA, the “Motion to Cancel Statutory Lien” filed by Reyes cannot be considered a non-litigious motion to exempt it from the requirement of a hearing or notice to complainant, the lawful possessor of Lot No. 7708.

To hold a judge administratively liable for gross ignorance of the law, the assailed act must not only be contrary to existing law or jurisprudence, but must also be motivated by bad faith, fraud, dishonesty or corruption on his part. This is the general rule. When, however, the law or rule is so elementary, as that which requires written motions to be heard, not knowing about it constitutes gross ignorance of the law even in the absence of malicious intent.