TOPIC Sections 4, 5 and 6 of Rule 15 of the Rules of Court

CASE NO. A.M. No. RTJ-05-1909. April 6, 2005.

CASE NAME C  COMMUNITY RURAL BANK OF GUIMBA (N. E.), INC., Represented by
OLGA M. SAMSON, complainant, vs. Judge TOMAS B. TALAVERA, Regional
Trial Court (Branch 28), Cabanatuan City, Nueva Ecija, respondent.
MEMBER Marie Kayla Galit
 
DOCTRINE
1. In granting the Motion to Dismiss, Talavera relied solely on the Resolution of the prosecutor who had
conducted the reinvestigation and recommended the dismissal of the case for alleged insufficiency of
evidence. Thus does not demonstrate his independent evaluation. It was unduly haste given that the
granting of motion was ONLY A DAY AFTER the reinvestigation’s conclusion.
2. Conclusion can be arrived at only after a thorough assessment of the prosecution evidence. For a valid
and proper exercise of judicial discretion, accepting the prosecution's word that the evidence is
insufficient is not enough; strictly required of the order disposing of the motion is the trial judge's own
evaluation of such evidence.
3. Talavera granted the Motions without notice to the bank and despite the lack of hearing. Sections 4, 5
and 6 of Rule 15 of the Rules of Court explicitly require that notices be sent at least three days before
the hearing and directed at the parties concerned; and that they state the time and place of hearing of
the motion, with proper proof of notice thereof.
a. Purpose: to enable the adverse party to appear for its own protection and to contest the
motion. In criminal proceedings, the word "party" is held to mean not only the government
and the accused, but also other persons who may be affected by the orders issued and/or
judgment rendered.

RECIT-READY DIGEST
Community Bank filed a complaint against the accused for Estafa. After preliminary investigation, Fiscal
recommended the filing of information. Accused appealed to the DOJ to which the latter denied with finality.
Three months later, the accused yet again filed a Motion for Reinvistigation without notice to the bank or its
counsel and no hearing. Then, reinvestigation was conducted by Asst. Provincial Prosec. Caballero (no notice
again to the bank) who reversed the decision of the previous investigating Fiscal. A motion to dismiss was
granted without notice to the bank or its counsel.

The issue in this case is: W/N Judge Talavera acted grossly negligent when he granted the (1) Motion for
Reinvestigation and (2) Motion to Dismiss without notice to the bank? YES. He granted the Motion for
Reinvestigation despite the finality of judgment of DOJ, he hastily granted Caballero’s resolution reversing the
findings of previous reinvestigating fiscal, and all these WITHOUT NOTICE TO THE BANK OR ITS
COUNSEL and with NO HEARING CONDUCTED.

Sections 4, 5 and 6 of Rule 15 of the Rules of Court explicitly require that notices be sent at least three days
before the hearing and directed at the parties concerned; and that they state the time and place of hearing of
the motion, with proper proof of notice thereof. Purpose: to enable the adverse party to appear for its own
protection and to contest the motion. In criminal proceedings, the word "party" is held to mean not only the
government and the accused, but also other persons who may be affected by the orders issued and/or
judgment rendered.

  1  
FACTS
• In a Complaint-Affidavit, Community Rural Bank of Guimba (N. E.), Inc. charged Judge Tomas B.
Talavera of RTC Cabanatuan, Nueva Ecija, with
a. Serious misconduct and/or gross inefficiency; and
b. Violation of Rules 1.01, 2 3.01 3 and 3 .0 2 of the Code of Judicial Conduct.
• In September 1997, the Bank lodged a complaint with the City Prosecutor's Office of Cabanatuan
charging several persons (the accused) with Estafa in relation to P.D. Nos. 818 and 1689.
• After a preliminary investigation, the Investigating Fiscal recommended the filing — of 6
Informations for Estafa against the accused.
o Respondent was the presiding judge of one of the branch to whom two criminal cases were
raffled.
• The accused appealed the findings of the Investigating Fiscal to the DOJ. DOJ denied the petition of
the accused. Then, the accused filed a Motion for Reconsideration, which was denied by the DOJ
through a resolution.
o Hence, respondent issued a Warrant of Arrest fixing no bail against the accused.
• Three months after, the accused filed a Motion for Reinvestigation and to Lift the Issuance of Warrant
of Arrest.
o Neither the Bank nor its counsel was furnished a copy of said Motion. There was also no
hearing on the said motion to afford the Bank an opportunity to oppose.
• Talavera granted the motion without any hearing.
o A reinvestigation proceeding was conducted by Asst. Provincial Prosecutor Virgilio
Caballero. Again, the Bank was not notified of said proceedings.
• Caballero reversed the earlier findings of the previous Investigating Fiscal.
o On the same day, a Motion to Dismiss was filed by Caballero. No notification again was
sent to the Bank or its counsel.
• Talavera granted the Motion to Dismiss and ordered the release of the accused.
• The Bank filed for a Motion for Reconsideration but Talavera denied the same.
Contentions:
o Talavera transgressed Sections 2, 5 and 6 of Rule 15 of the Revised Rules of Court, when he
granted the Motion for Reinvestigation of the accused and Assistant Caballero's Motion to
Dismiss without notice and hearing in favor of the Bank or its counsel.
o Talavera’s granting of the Motion to Dismiss based solely on the Resolution issued by
Assistant Provincial Prosecutor Caballero, without making his own independent findings of
the merits of the case, is repugnant to Crespo vs. Mogul ruling, which held that once a
complaint or information is filed in court any disposition or the conviction or acquittal of the
accused rests in the sound discretion of the court.

Evaluation of OCA:
• By dismissing the criminal case without giving complainant the opportunity to object to the
Motion for Reinvestigation and Motion to Dismiss, Talavera showed gross ignorance of the law.
The presence of the bank was required in the hearing of a motion to dismiss as much as in the
arraignment. The dismissal of the criminal cases covered the litigation's civil aspect (recovery of
damages by the offended party), which was deemed included in the Information.
o OCA recommended that Talavera be fined in the amount of P21,000.

ISSUE/S and HELD

W/N Judge Talavera acted grossly negligent when he granted the (1) Motion for Reinvestigation and (2)
Motion to Dismiss without notice to the bank? YES.

RATIO
- First, Talavera should not have entertained the Motion for Reinvestigation filed by the accused.
Talavera was fully aware that theaccused had appealed the unfavorable ruling of the investigating
prosecutor to the DOJ.

  2  
 o Talavera must have in fact taken that appeal into consideration when he issued a warrant of
arrest against all the accused after Justice Secretary Cuevas had denied their Petition for
Review and affirmed the presence of prima facie evidence against them.
§ What the prosecutor reviewed and overruled in the reinvestigation was not the
actuation and resolution of his predecessor, but of the secretary of justice no less.
- In Ledesma v. CA, the Court held:
o Section 39, Chapter 8, Book IV in relation to Sections 5, 8, and 9, Chapter 2, Title III of the
Revised Admin Code gives the secretary of justice supervision and control over the Office of
the Chief Prosecutor and the Provincial and City Prosecution.
§ In administrative law:
• Supervision means overseeing or the power or authority of an officer to see
that subordinates perform their duties. If the subordinate fail or neglect to
fulfill them, the former may take such action as prescribed by law to make
them perform such duties.
• Control means the power of an officer to alter or modify or nullify or set
aside what a subordinate had done in the performance of his duties and to
substitute the judgment of the former for that of the latter.'
- Thus, the actions of prosecutors are limited; subject to review by the secretary of justice who may
affirm, nullify, reverse or modify their actions or opinions. Consequently the secretary may direct
them to file either a motion to dismiss the case or an information against the accused
o The provincial or city prosecutor has neither the personality nor the legal authority to
review or overrule the decision of the secretary.
- Consistent with this administrative superior-subordinate relationship between them, Section 7 of
Department Order No. 223 stipulates that a motion for reinvestigation on the ground of newly
discovered evidence must be filed before the justice secretary rules on an appeal from a resolution in a
preliminary investigation.
o In this case, the accused filed their Motion for Reinvestigation about three months after the
August 15, 2000 Resolution of the secretary denying with finality. It was grossly
erroneous for respondent judge to order the reinvestigation of the case by the prosecutor.
o Talavera granted the Motion only on the basis of an alleged newly discovered evidence — a
one-page Affidavit executed by Ms. Sacramento, one of the co-accused.
- Second, in granting the Motion to Dismiss, Talavera relied solely on the Resolution of the prosecutor
who had conducted the reinvestigation and recommended the dismissal of the case for alleged
insufficiency of evidence.
o Thus does not demonstrate his independent evaluation. It was undly hate given that the
granting of motion was ONLY A DAY AFTER the reinvestigation’s conclusion.
§ Conclusion can be arrived at only after a thorough assessment of the prosecution
evidence. For a valid and proper exercise of judicial discretion, accepting the
prosecution's word that the evidence is insufficient is not enough; strictly required of
the order disposing of the motion is the trial judge's own evaluation of such evidence.
- IMPORTANT: Third, Talavera granted the Motions without notice to the bank and despite the lack
of hearing. Sections 4, 5 and 6 of Rule 15 of the Rules of Court explicitly require that notices be sent
at least three days before the hearing and directed at the parties concerned; and that they state the time
and place of hearing of the motion, with proper proof of notice thereof.
o Purpose: to enable the adverse party to appear for its own protection and to contest the
motion.
§ In criminal proceedings, the word "party" is held to mean not only the government
and the accused, but also other persons who may be affected by the orders issued
and/or judgment rendered.
- A told, respondent showed his lack of understanding, not only of the basic and established superior-
subordinate relationship between the secretary of justice and the provincial prosecutors, but also of the
functions and duties of the trial court in "the proper scheme of things" in our criminal justice system.

  3  
DISPOSTIVE PORTION
WHEREFORE, Judge Tomas B. Talavera is found GUILTY of gross ignorance of the law and is FINED
21,000 pesos. He is hereby sternly warned that a repetition of the same or similar infractions in the future shall
be dealt with more severely.

OTHER NOTES
Sections 4, 5 and 6 of Rule 15 of the Rules of Court (Not provided for in the case)

Section 4. Hearing of motion. — Except for motions which the court may act upon without prejudicing the
rights of the adverse party, every written motion shall be set for hearing by the applicant.
Every written motion required to be heard and the notice of the hearing thereof shall be served in such a
manner as to ensure its receipt by the other party at least three (3) days before the date of hearing, unless the
court for good cause sets the hearing on shorter notice. (4a)

Section 5. Notice of hearing. — The notice of hearing shall be addressed to all parties concerned, and shall
specify the time and date of the hearing which must not be later than ten (10) days after the filing of the
motion. (5a)

Section 6. Proof of service necessary. — No written motion set for hearing shall be acted upon by the court
without proof of service thereof. (6a)

  4