|
Wednesday, May 11, 2005
SC fines dismissed judge P20T for delay of decision
DESPITE his dismissal from service last year, former Regional Trial Court (RTC) Branch 16 Judge Agapito Hontanosas Jr. is still hounded by controversies.
A recent ruling by the Supreme Court (SC) found Hontanosas guilty of gross ignorance of the law or procedure and undue delay in rendering a decision or order. He was slapped with a P20,000 fine.
The SC dismissed Hontanosas from government service last Sept. 21, 2004 after a company in Cebu alleged that the former judge asked for money in exchange for a favorable ruling.
In a decision promulgated last May 6, the SC Third Division said Hontanosas would have been imposed a stiffer penalty had he not been dismissed from service last year.
“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,” the SC ruling read.
Alfero Bagano alleged that Hontanosas issued a transfer of certificate of title to Arcadio Reyes, even if there was no hearing conducted on Reyes’ request.
Bagano earlier filed a forcible entry case against Reyes, which a city court ruled in Bagano’s
favor.
When the case was elevated to the RTC, Hontanosas denied Reyes’ motion, which would have resolved the issue on the ownership of the lot in Talisay City.
But after he denied Reyes’ motion, Hontanosas reversed his own ruling by granting the motion to cancel statutory lien, even without a motion or request from Reyes for the reversal of the decision.
Reconsideration
Bagano added that when he filed a motion for reconsideration on his ruling, Hontanosas decided against his favor.
He also said that Hontanosas violated the Rules of Civil Procedure for taking four to five months to resolve the motions relative to the case.
In his answer, Hontanosas, who considered Bagano a disgruntled losing litigant, said the issues raised by Bagano were “judicial matters which were tackled and resolved by him in line with his functions as presiding judge” and that the questioned act was a “judgment call and an act of judicial discretion which is the heart of the act of judging.”
As he asked to have the administrative complaint dismissed, Hontanosas said the complaint was only meant to harass him.
Disagree
But the court did not agree with Hontanosas.
“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,” the SC ruling read.
As correctly found by the Office of the Court Administrator, the SC said that Reyes’ motion to cancel statutory lien cannot be considered a non-litigious motion to exempt it from the requirement of a hearing or notice to complainant, the legal possessor of the lot.
“Respecting the charge of failure to resolve the pending incidents within the required period, respondent (Hontanosas) did not deny the same or advance any reason thereof. He must thus be faulted for it,” the SC ruling read. (GN)
(May 11, 2005 issue)
Write letter to the editor.Click here.
Join the Sun.Star message board.Click here. |
|
[return to top]
[home]
[network page]
|
LOCAL NEWS
BUSINESS
OPINION
SPORTS
LIFESTYLE
FEATURE
SUPERBALITA
WEEKEND
|
