[A.M. No. RTJ-05-1896.

April 29, 2005]

ATTY. JULIUS NERI, complainant, vs. JUDGE JESUS S. DE LA PEA, respondent.

FACTS: The case stems from a motion for reconsideration from a civil case of damages
filed by one Aznar, the plaintiff in the original case, against Citibank. The motion for
reconsideration was re-raffled to the sala of Respondent Judge De La Peña. Judge De
La Peña granted the motion for reconsideration which prompted the filing of Atty. Neri
of the administrative case now in dispute, charging Respondent Judge of dishonesty
and gross ignorance of the law. Respondent Judge, in his defense, contended that he
based his decision from an ex parte manifestation made by Aznar. Petitioner assailed
the Respondent’s appreciation of the ex parte manifestation as Citibank was not
served a copy of such.

CONTENTION: The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) found Respondent Judge
liable for violating for violating Section 4, Rule 13 which requires that adverse parties be
served copies of all pleadings and similar papers; in relation to Section 5, Rule 15 which
requires a movant to set his motion for hearing, unless it is one of those which a court
can act upon without prejudicing the rights of the other party; both provisions of the
Revised Rules of Civil Procedure.

According to the OCA, the fact that plaintiff Aznar had failed to serve a copy of his ex
parte manifestation upon Citibank should have been reason enough for respondent to
disregard the same. The OCA found Respondent only liable for simple misconduct.

DEFENSE: He principally defended that, having appealed from his decision to the Court
of Appeals, the complainant should not have filed this administrative case. Respondent
decried complainan’ts case as forum-shopping. In his defense, respondent asserted
that he had in fact read the transcripts, having received copies thereof attached to
an ex parte manifestation filed by plaintiff Aznar.[12] He also defended the amount of
damages he awarded by comparing them to those awarded in a 1973 case, with
inflation taken into account

HELD: Respondent Judge did not violate the stated provisions of the Rules of Civil
Procedure. The prevailing doctrine in our jurisdiction is that a motion without a notice of
hearing addressed to the parties is a mere scrap of paper. However, the same cannot
be said for manifestations which, unless otherwise indicated, are usually made merely
for the information of the court.

Nevertheless, Judge must still be found guilty for knowingly rendering an unjust
judgment, for having based his decision on an ex parte manifestation while Citibank
was never made aware of such. Said action violates the principle of fair play, proof that
there is something amiss Respondent Judge’s sense of fairness and righteousness.