[ G.R. No. 128428. January 17, 2000]

CENON CORDERO & SONS ENTERPRISES vs. CA, et al.

FIRST DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JAN 17 2000.

G.R. No. 128428 (Cenon Cordero and Sons Enterprises, vs. Court of Appeals and Manila Electric Corporation, National Power Corporation, and Energy Industry Administration Bureau.)

No less imperative is the judge's sacred duty to administer justice without fear or favor1 Parayno vs. Meneses, 231 SCRA 807. and hold himself above reproach and suspicion such that aside from being in fact impartial, dispassionate, objective, and unbiased, a judge also ought to appear to be so, not only to litigants but to the public as well. Impropriety, including the appearance of it, should at all times be avoided.2 Aguas vs. Court of Appeals, 284 SCRA 390 (1998).

This petition for review on certiorari questions the decision of the Court of Appeals promulgated on December 27, 1996 denying due course to an original petition for certiorari to disqualify Judge Bacalla from trying the case below, and the resolution dated March 10, 1997 denying petitioner's motion for reconsideration.

The factual antecedents of the case are as follows:

In a complaint filed on June 19, 1996, in Civil Case No. Q-96-27835, before the Regional Trial Court, Quezon City, Branch 216, presided over by Judge Marciano I. Bacalla, petitioner was plaintiff and private respondents Manila Electric Company (MERALCO), National Power Corporation (NAPOCOR) and Energy Industry Administration Bureau (EIAB) were defendants in the case.

During the hearing of an application for preliminary injunction on July 10, 1996, petitioner asked Judge Bacalla if indeed he had a son who was working for respondent Meralco. The judge readily admitted such fact but proceeded with the hearing as if his relationship did not matter to the case.3 Petition for Review, Rollo, p. 10.

When petitioner orally manifested that it would seek the inhibition of respondent Judge, the latter's response in open court was that he would deny the motion it filed.4 Ibid., Rollo, p. 11.

On July 12, 1996, petitioner filed with the trial court its motion for inhibition.5 Rollo, pp. 33-37. Petitioner argued that the relationship existing between the judge and his son as an employee of one of the parties is a ground for disqualification of the judge from sitting in a case under Rule 137, Section 1 of the Rules of Court.

By order dated August 6, 1996,6 Rollo, p. 38. Judge Bacalla denied the motion. He ruled that the relationship of the presiding judge with an employee of a party to the case is not a legal ground for inhibition.

Without seeking reconsideration of the order dated August 6, 1996, on August 22, 1996, petitioner filed with the Court of Appeals a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court alleging that respondent judge gravely abused his discretion in not inhibiting himself from trying the case. On December 27, 1996, the Court of Appeals denied due course to the petition and dismissed the same.

On March 10, 1997, the Court of Appeals denied petitioner's motion for reconsideration.

Hence, this petition.

The issue raise is whether Judge Bacalla is legally inhibited from hearing the case before his court because his son is employed with one of the parties thereto.

The ground for inhibition does not fall under the first paragraph of Section 1, Rule 137.7 Section 1. Disqualification of Judges. - No judge or judicial officer shall sit in any case in which he, or his wife or child, is pecuniarily interested as heir, legatee, creditor or otherwise, or in which he is related to either party within the sixth degree of consanguinity or affinity, or to counsel within the fourth degree, computed according to the rules of the civil law, or in which he has been executor, administrator, guardian, trustee or counsel, or in which he has presided in any inferior court when his ruling or decision is the subject of review, without the written consent of all parties in interest, signed by them and entered upon the record.

A judge may, in the exercise of his sound discretion, disqualify himself from sitting in a case, for just or valid reasons other than those mentioned above. While the first paragraph provides for the specific grounds for disqualification and gives the judicial officer no discretion to sit in a case, the second paragraph leaves the matter of inhibition to the sound discretion of the judge.8 People vs. Serrano, 203 SCRA 17.

It does not explicitly enumerate the specific grounds for inhibition but provides a broad policy-oriented ground for disqualification of judges for just and valid reasons other than those enumerated in the first paragraph.9 Geotina vs. Gonzales, 41 SCRA 66.

The judge may, in the exercise of his sound discretion, disqualify himself from sitting in a case for just and valid reasons10 Parayno vs. Meneses, 231 SCRA 807. other than those mentioned in Rule 137, Section 1. The ultimate test in determining the validity of the court's inhibition is whether or not the petitioner is deprived of fair and impartial trial11 Associacion de Agricultures de Talisay-Silay, Inc. vs. Talisay-Silay Milling Co., Inc., 88 SCRA 294. and the cold neutrality of an impartial judge.

IN VIEW WHEREOF we SET ASIDE the decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 41658, and ENJOIN Judge Marciano J. Bacalla to exercise the better part of his discretion by inhibiting himself from sitting in Civil Case No. Q-96-27835.

No costs.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) VIRGINIA ANCHETA-SORIANO

Clerk of Court


Back to Home | Back to Main

 

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE

PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

QUICK SEARCH

cralaw

 







chanrobles.com





ChanRobles Legal Resources:

ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com