Relief From Judgment Confined to Trial Courts, Not Extended to Court of Appeals

The Supreme Court has clarified a fundamental point in Philippine civil procedure: the remedy of relief from judgment under Rule 38 of the Rules of Court is available only in trial courts, not in the Court of Appeals. This distinction matters because litigants who miss their appeal deadlines sometimes attempt to use this remedy at the appellate level, only to find that the rules do not permit it.

The Case Before the Court

The case arose from an administrative complaint filed by Governor Mahid Mutilan against Judge Santos Adiong of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 8, Marawi City. The complaint alleged gross ignorance of the law, incompetence, and violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. The underlying dispute involved SPC Civil Case No. 507-98, a petition for mandamus and damages filed by several provincial employees against the Province of Lanao del Sur and its officials, including Governor Mutilan.

Procedural Irregularities

The investigating justice found several procedural defects in how Judge Adiong handled the case. First, the motion to declare the respondents in default lacked proof of service—there was no evidence that the respondents were notified of the motion. Second, the notice of hearing was addressed to the Clerk of Court rather than to the parties, contrary to Section 5, Rule 15 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. Third, the joint motion for garnishment suffered from the same defects.

The Supreme Court emphasized that under Section 4, Rule 15, every motion required to be heard must include a notice of hearing sent to the other party at least three days before the hearing date. Proof of service is mandatory under Section 6, Rule 15. The Court has consistently held that a motion without proper notice of hearing is "a mere scrap of paper."

The Default Judgment and Garnishment

Judge Adiong declared the respondents in default and rendered judgment on October 5, 1998, ordering the provincial government to pay over P1 million in salaries, damages, and attorney's fees. The very next day, the petitioners filed a joint motion for garnishment, which the judge granted immediately. The Court found this conduct particularly egregious because the judge acted without giving the provincial government any opportunity to be heard.

The Court's Ruling

The Supreme Court agreed with the investigating justice's finding of gross ignorance of the law. The Court emphasized that a judge must be faithful to the law and maintain professional competence. When a judge displays an utter lack of familiarity with the rules, public confidence in the courts erodes. The Court imposed a fine of P5,000 on Judge Adiong, with a stern warning that repetition of similar acts would be dealt with most severely.

Practical Takeaways

• Rule 38 relief from judgment is limited to trial courts. Parties seeking to set aside a judgment or final order should file the appropriate remedy in the court that rendered the decision, not in an appellate court.

• Proof of service is mandatory for motions. Under Section 6, Rule 15 of the Rules of Court, no written motion set for hearing shall be acted upon without proof of service. A motion lacking this requirement is considered a "mere scrap of paper."

• Notices of hearing must be addressed to all parties. Section 5, Rule 15 requires that the notice specify the time and date of hearing, which must not be later than ten days after filing. Addressing the notice to the Clerk of Court instead of the parties is defective.

• Discretionary execution requires notice to the adverse party. Under Section 2(a), Rule 39, execution of a judgment pending appeal requires a motion with notice to the adverse party. Failure to comply renders the motion patently defective.

• Judges are expected to know and follow procedural rules. Ignorance of the law by a judge can be the mainspring of injustice and constitutes gross ignorance of the law, warranting administrative sanctions.

This article is general information and not legal advice. For your specific situation, consult a lawyer or ask ASG Legal AI.