The Office of the Court Administrator finds respondent judge guilty of abuse of discretion in hearing the motion to recall the warrant of arrest on the same day the motion was filed and recommends that respondent be admonished to be more circumspect and warned that repetition of the incident would be dealt with more severely. While holding that the provision of Rule 15, 4 on the three-day notice is too basic for respondent judge not to know, the OCA nonetheless finds respondent judges liability somewhat mitigated by the fact that notice of the motion was at least given to complainant. Thus, Deputy Court Administrator Reynaldo L. Suarez states in his memorandum: Complainant was never deprived of the fundamental rule of due process which requires that a person be accorded notice and an opportunity to be heard. (Rubenecia v. CSC, 244 SCRA 640) He was properly represented by counsels in the persons of Prosecutors Erlinda Alvaro and Nestor Gonzales. Notice was also served to the Office of the Prosecutor and both parties were allowed to argue during the hearing of the motions dated December 13, 1995. This will mitigate respondents actuation. With respect to respondent clerk of court, the OCA finds no evidence to support the charge against her. First. Complainant charges that respondent judge antedated her order denying reconsideration of her previous order recalling the warrant of arrest by making it appear that it was made on December 22, 1995 when the fact was that in the first week of January 1996, when complainant called up the court to inquire about the resolution of his motion for reconsideration, he was told by respondent judge to just wait. As already stated, respondent judge denies the allegation. She claims that her order was actually prepared on December 22, 1995 but it was mailed to complainant only on January 3, 1996 because she had gone on leave the week after December 22, 1995. If the order of December 22, 1995 was really made on that day, it is hard to see why a copy could not have been sent to complainant earlier. The service of orders and other court processes after all is the ministerial function of the clerk of court. The fact that the judge had to go on leave was not a reason for court employees to wait for her return. It would therefore appear that the order was prepared only on January 3, 1996 and not on December 22, 1995 as it purports to have been made. Be that as it may, we find no delay in the resolution of complainants motion. Between December 22, 1995 (date of hearing) and January 3, 1996 (date of mailing of the order) was just 12 days. Second. We agree with the Office of the Court Administrator that respondent judge committed an abuse of discretion in hearing the motion of the accused on the same day the motion was filed. Rule 15, 4 of the former Rules of Court states: Notice. - Notice of a motion shall be served by the applicant to all parties concerned, at least three (3) days before the hearing thereof, together with a copy of the motion, and of any affidavits and other papers accompanying it. The court, however, for good cause