ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[ G.R. No. 129713. March 1, 2000]

CAGAYAN DE ORO COLISEUM, INC. vs. CA, et al.

FIRST DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated MAR 1 2000.

G.R. No. 129713 (Cagayan de Oro Coliseum, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, Maximiano Mabanag, Jr., and Richard Goking.)

For resolution is the "Urgent Motion for Inhibition" filed by private respondents.

On December 15, 1999, this Court rendered its Decision in this Case reversing the appealed decision of the Court of Appeals. Both petitioner and private respondents filed motions for reconsideration. Subsequently, private respondents filed the instant urgent Motion for Inhibition of the ponente from participating in the deliberation and resolution of respondents' motion for reconsideration and any other incidents or deliberations of this instant case, on the ground that the ponente stood as one of the principal sponsors at the wedding of Jesus P. Sale, Jr. and Angelene W. Quimpo, the daughter of petitioner's counsel, Atty. Angel R. Quimpo. Based on these allegations, private respondents surmise that the ponente's relationship with Atty. Quimpo-Sale might engender a conflict of interest on her part. While private respondents claim that they "do not impugn the personal character nor integrity of the Honorable Justice," they argue that "no judge should handle a case in which he might be perceived, rightly or wrongly, as susceptible to bias and partiality."

When private respondents impute a potential conflict of interest on the part of any member of this Court, they in effect assail the integrity of the entire Court. It need not be emphasized that this Court is a collegial body, and any decision it renders is an act of the Court and not of one member thereof. Parenthetically, no amount of disclaimer on private respondents' part can lessen the impact of such an attack. This is especially true in this case considering that it went through all three divisions of this Court.

In this connection, it must be stressed that private respondents' complaints are utterly unfounded. Based on private respondents' bare allegations, there is no ground for either the disqualification or inhibition of the ponente from participating in the deliberation and resolution of their motion for reconsideration. The circumstance cited does not constitute a valid reason for the ponente to rescue herself from this case.

Rule 137, Section 1 of the Rules of Court provides:

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 and valid reasons other than those mentioned above.

Hence, the Urgent motion for Inhibition filed by private respondents fails to present just and valid reasons for the ponente's inhibition. However, in order to disabuse the minds of private respondents of any unfounded suspicion of undue interest in the instant case, the ponente hereby voluntarily inhibits herself from any further participation in the deliberation, resolution and adjudication of this case.

IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, let the instant case be raffled to another member of this Court to determine its new ponente.

The letter dated February 15, 2000 of Atty. Santiago O. Goking, Jr., counsel for private respondents, submitted to this Court copies of the "Urgent Motion for Inhibition" is NOTED. Puno, J., voluntarily inhibits himself from this case.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) VIRGINIA ANCHETA-SORIANO

Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE