A.M. No. MTJ-24-024 (Formerly OCA IPI No. 20-3132-MTJ) - ATTY. JOSELITO M. BAETIONG, COMPLAINANT, VS. PRESIDING JUDGE JO ANNE N. DELA CRUZ-MALATON, MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURT, CASIGURAN-DILASAG-DINALUNGAN, AURORA.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

Accordingly, the JIB recommended: (i) that the instant administrative complaint be redocketed as a regular administrative case against respondent; and (ii) respondent be found guilty of gross ignorance of the law and procedure and be fined in the amount of PHP 50,000.00, payable within 30 days from notice, with a stern warning that a repetition of the same or similar offense shall be dealt with more severely. [37] The JIB Proper agreed that respondent violated Rule 15, Sections 4 and 5 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure when she failed to observe the "3-day notice" rule required with respect to written motions. It observed that a hearing was necessary in this case considering that there were pertinent issues that needed to be resolved, i.e., whether the movants received a copy of respondent's assailed Order directing the issuance of arrest against them and whether their failure to attend the scheduled pretrial was indeed their first time. [38] On this score, the JIB Proper rejected respondent's claim of good cause in failing to observe the "3-day notice" rule since she did not set the motions for hearing even on a shorter notice. The JIB Proper held that since the observance of the "3-day notice" rule is basic, elementary, and well-known, respondent's patent disregard of the same constituted gross ignorance of the law for which she should be held administratively liable pursuant to Rule 140, Section 14(j), as further amended. Nonetheless, since respondent has been in the service for more than 19 years and this is the first time she is charged administratively, the JIB Proper recommended the mitigation of the penalty to be imposed upon respondent following Rule 140, Section 20 of the same Rules. [39] The Issue Before the Court The issue for the Court's resolution is whether respondent should be held administratively liable for the act complained of. The Court's Ruling The Court adopts the findings and recommendations of the JIB Proper, with certain modifications as will be explained hereunder. I. At the outset, it is important to note that on February 22, 2022, the Court En Banc unanimously approved A.M. No. 21-08-09-SC, entitled " Further Amendments to Rule 140 of the Rules of Court ." On April 3, 2022, the publication requirement thereof had already been complied with; [40] hence, Rule 140, as further amended, is already effective. In this relation, Section 24 of Rule 140, as further amended, explicitly provides that it will apply to all pending and future administrative disciplinary cases involving Members, officials, employees, and personnel of the Judiciary, to wit: SECTION 24. Retroactive Effect. All the foregoing provisions shall be applied to all pending and future administrative cases involving the discipline of Members, officials, employees, and personnel of the Judiciary , without prejudice to the internal rules of the Committee on Ethics and Ethical Standards of the Supreme Court insofar as complaints against Members of the Supreme