G.R. No. RTJ-04-1861. July 30, 2004.
MARGIE MACIAS CORPUS, complainant, vs. JUDGE WILFREDO G. OCHOTORENA, RTC BR. 11, SINDANGAN, ZAMBOANGA DEL NORTE, respondent.

FACTS

The complainant, Margie Macias Corpus, was the respondent in a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage filed by her husband, Judge Mariano Macias, which was raffled to the court of the respondent, Judge Wilfredo Ochotorena. After summons by publication, Mrs. Macias filed a Motion to Dismiss within the reglementary period to file an answer. Instead of resolving this motion first, Judge Ochotorena set the case for hearing on the merits one day prior to the scheduled hearing on the Motion to Dismiss. He subsequently denied the motion and proceeded with the trial.
Despite Mrs. Macias filing several subsequent motions and manifestations, including objections to proceeding with the trial before the resolution of her pending Motion to Dismiss, Judge Ochotorena ignored most of these pleadings, terminated the proceedings, and rendered a decision. Mrs. Macias filed an administrative complaint for bias, partiality, and violation of judicial conduct, alleging a deprivation of due process. She also successfully challenged the judge’s actions via a Petition for Certiorari before the Court of Appeals, which nullified the proceedings and the decision.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Judge Wilfredo G. Ochotorena is administratively liable for gross ignorance of the law and procedure and for violating the complainant’s right to due process.

RULING

Yes, the respondent judge is administratively liable. The Supreme Court found that Judge Ochotorena committed gross ignorance of the law and procedure. The legal logic is clear: a motion to dismiss filed within the time to file an answer suspends the period to file that answer and must be resolved first before any proceedings on the merits can lawfully proceed. By ignoring this fundamental rule and proceeding with the trial without first resolving the pending Motion to Dismiss, the judge displayed a basic and utter disregard for settled procedural rules. This is not a mere error of judgment but a gross violation of the Rules of Court that constitutes ignorance of the law.
Furthermore, his actions constituted a denial of due process. Due process requires that a party be given the opportunity to be heard, which includes having pending jurisdictional and pre-answer motions resolved before being required to participate in a trial on the merits. The judge’s haste in conducting the hearings and rendering a decision, while ignoring the complainant’s valid pleadings, was a blatant transgression of this constitutional right. The Court of Appeals’ prior annulment of his proceedings substantiated these administrative charges. For these infractions, the Court imposed a fine of Forty Thousand Pesos (P40,000.00) to be deducted from his retained retirement benefits.