Fabella-vs.-judge-see.docx

Fabella vs. Judge Sy FACTS: Atty. Fabella is the counsel for the defendant-clients in Civil Case No. 38-28457 “Star Paper Corporation vs. Society of St. Paul & Fr. Eleazar. The clients of Atty. Fabella were served a copy of the compliant and a Writ of Attachment, based on the allegation that the said clients contracted a debt in bad faith with no intention of paying the same. On July 9, 2002, an Urgent Ex-parte Motion to Withdraw Cash Deposit was filed. Consequently, Judge Lee granted the Ex-Parte Motion to Withdraw Cash Deposit without notice given to Atty. Fabella and his clients and despite the failure to set such litigious motion for hearing and contrary to existing laws and jurisprudence. In short, Judge Lee granted the motion without any prior notice or hearing. Atty. Fabella and his clients only learned of the withdrawal when they received a copy of the said Order. Atty. Fabella now comes to the Court alleging that Judge Lee committed a violation of Rule 15, Section 4 of the Rules of Court, when he granted the Urgent Ex-Parte Motion to Withdraw Cash Deposit without any prior service of notice or hearing. Issue: W/N Judge Lee violated Rule 15, Section 4 of the Rules of Court? YES HELD: The Court held that Judge Lee has violated Rule 15, Section 4 of the Rules of Court. Rule 15, Section 4 provides: 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 In the case at bar, the Motion to Withdraw the Cash Deposit lacked notice of hearing and proof of service. Judge Lee should have not acted upon it. However, because he had erroneously thought that the rights of the Atty. Fabella’s clients would not be prejudiced thereby, he took action. His poor judgment obviously resulted in his issuance of the erroneous Order that granted the release of the deposit.