Young vs. Batuegas
Young vs. Batuegas
*
A.C. No. 5379. May 9, 2003.
_______________
* FIRST DIVISION.
124
notice of hearing of the motion for bail two days prior to the scheduled date.
Although a motion may be heard on short notice, respondents failed to show
any good cause to justify the non-observance of the three-day notice rule.
Verily, as lawyers, they are obliged to observe the rules of procedure and not
to misuse them to defeat the ends of justice.
Legal Ethics; Courts; Court Personnel; Clerks of Court; A clerk of
court should not hesitate to inform the judge if he should find any act or
conduct on the part of lawyers which are contrary to the established rules of
procedure.—We are in accord with the Investigating Commissioner that
respondent clerk of court should not be made administratively liable for
including the Motion in the calendar of the trial court, considering that it
was authorized by the presiding judge. However, he is reminded that his
administrative functions, although not involving the discretion or judgment
of a judge, are vital to the prompt and sound administration of justice. Thus,
he should not hesitate to inform the judge if he should find any act or
conduct on the part of lawyers which are contrary to the established rules of
procedure.
RESOLUTION
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:
_______________
1 Rollo, p. 1-2.
2 Id., p. 4.
125
_______________
126
4
In a Resolution dated August 13, 2001, the instant case was referred
to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines for investigation, report and
recommendation or decision.
On December 7, 2001, the Investigating Commissioner, Rebecca
Villanueva-Maala, submitted her report and recommendation as
follows:
_______________
4 Id., at p. 128.
5 Id., at p. 135.
6 Resolution No. XV-2002-400 dated August 3, 2002.
7 Benguet Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. Flores, A.C. No. 4058, 12 March 1998, 287
SCRA 449, 463.
8 Form 28, Appendix of Forms, Revised Rules of Court.
127
_______________
9 Artiaga, Jr. v. Villanueva, A.C. No. 1892, 29 July 1988, 163 SCRA 638, 643.
10 Far Eastern Shipping Company v. Court of Appeals, 357 Phil. 703, 718; 297
SCRA 30 (1998).
11 Flores v. Chua, A.C. No. 4500, 30 April 1999, 366 SCRA 132, 151.
12 Tapucar v. Tapucar, 335 Phil. 66, 74; 293 SCRA 331 (1998).
128
_______________
129
——o0o——
130