ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[G.R. No. 143351 & 144129. August 29, 2000]

VILLAROSA vs. HRET & QUINTOS

EN BANC

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated AUG 29 2000.

G.R. No. 143351 and 144129 (Villarosa vs. HRET and Quintos.)

Before this case was deliberated upon, Justice Panganiban called the attention of the Court to the fact that petitioner took her oath of office before him in 1998 and that a report has just reached him that she allegedly mentioned such fact in a radio interview on August 14, 2000. For this reason, he offered to inhibit himself from further participating and from voting on the merits of the case.

However, the Court resolved to reject the offer and required him to continue participating and to cast his vote because the administration of an oath of office is not a legal or moral ground for inhibition. The administration of such oath is a routine function of judicial officials and is not a warrant that the inductee has a vested right to the office concerned. Neither is such act evidence or proof of bias in favor or against such inductee.

Very truly yours,

LUZVIMINDA D. PUNO

Clerk of Court

(Sgd.) MA. LUISA D. VILLARAMA

Asst. Clerk of Court����

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE