This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2011-07-27 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| Judge Clapis displayed gross ignorance of the law in his failure to hear and consider the evidence of the prosecution against the accused in the hearing for bail. Judges are reminded that they have a duty to maintain professional competence at all times in order to preserve the faith of the public in the courts.[36] Any error committed in the performance of their judicial functions which is attributable to their unfamiliarity with the laws and established jurisprudence only serves to erode the confidence of the community in the ability of the courts to dispense justice. The Court reiterates its statement in Mutilan v. Adiong[37] that "A judge owes the public and the court the duty to be proficient in the law and is expected to keep abreast of laws and prevailing jurisprudence. Ignorance of the law by a judge can easily be the mainspring of injustice."[38] | |||||
|
2008-02-06 |
|||||
| The Court notes that Judge Adiong was previously fined P20,000 for ignorance of the law in Bantuas v. Pangadapun[31] and P5,000 for gross ignorance of the law in Mutilan v. Adiong.[32] He was also warned in the latter case that repetition of the same or similar acts in the future will be dealt with most severely. In Gomos v. Adiong,[33] Judge Adiong was again found guilty of gross ignorance of the law for issuing a writ of preliminary injunction in violation of Section 21(1)[34] of B.P. Blg. 129[35] and Sections 4(c)[36] and 5, Rule 58 of the Rules of Court and for citing FAPE employees in contempt of court in disregard of Section 3,[37] Rule 71. Accordingly, he was suspended from office without salary and other benefits for six (6) months with a warning that a repetition of the same or similar acts shall be dealt with more severely. In De la Paz v. Adiong,[38] Judge Adiong was found guilty of gross ignorance of the law and abuse of authority and was suspended for a period of six (6) months without pay, with a warning that the commission of a similar act in the future will warrant his dismissal from the service. | |||||
|
2007-10-05 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| It is a fundamental rule that every motion must be set for hearing by the movant except for 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.[53] Section 4 of Rule 15 provides that every written motion required to be heard and the notice of the hearing thereof shall be served in such a manner as to ensure their receipt by the other party at least three days before the date of hearing, while Section 6 states that no written motion set for hearing shall be acted upon by the court without proof of service thereof. Indeed, proof of service is mandatory.[54] A motion without notice of hearing is pro forma, or a mere scrap of paper which the court has no reason to consider; while a motion without proof of service is nothing but an empty formality deserving no judicial cognizance, and the rule mandates that the same shall not be acted upon by the court.[55] | |||||