ChanRobles Virtual law Library
G.R. No. 165857.� December 6, 2004]
ALAGO vs. HINUNANGAN
THIRD DIVISION
Gentlemen:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated DEC 6 2004.
G.R. No. 165857 (Tito Alago, Agripino C. Baybay, Sr. and Rodulfo Paderes vs. Ernesto & Cosme Hinunangan.)
Petitioners assail the July 22, 2004 decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 78722 denying their petition for certiorari and prohibition, thus, upholding the April 15, 2003 and July 14, 2003 orders issued by the Regional Trial Court at Maasin, Southern Leyte in Civil Case No. R-3111 which denied their motion for inhibition of the presiding judge and their motion for reconsideration.
The present controversy stemmed from an action for specific performance with damages filed by private respondents against petitioners demanding petitioners to remove, demolish or destroy the hollow-block fence which the latter constructed to enclose both sides of the right of way granted to them by the former.
On November 12, 1999, the petitioners filed their answer.
On September 27, 2000, petitioners filed a motion to dismiss the complaint in Civil Case No. R-3111 on ground of lack of cause of action.
On October 12, 2000, respondent judge denied the motion to dismiss for being filed out of time.
Displeased, petitioners filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals assailing the order denying their motion to dismiss but the same was denied.
Subsequent petition to this Court likewise failed.
Finally, respondent judge ordered Civil Case No. R-3111 set for pre-trial. Thereupon, the petitioners filed a motion for the inhibition of the respondent judge. Petitioners alleged that "they entertained serious doubts about the cold neutrality of the respondent judge in adjudicating their case".
On April 15, 2003, the respondent judge issued the first assailed order denying the said motion for his inhibition.
On May 6, 2003, the petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration of the said order but the same was denied in the second assailed order dated July 14, 2003.
On petition for certiorari and prohibition, the Court of Appeals upheld the assailed orders of the trial court and denied the petition for lack of merit.
Thus, the instant petition, which must likewise fail.
Records are bereft of proof of respondent judge's bias and prejudice against petitioners. As correctly ruled by the appellate court, the mere fact that respondent judge suggested that the parties come up with an amicable settlement of their controversy did not constitute bias and prejudice. Neither did the comment he made to petitioners' counsel to behave well and to encourage his clients to have a positive attitude in trying to find a solution to the controversy constitutes bias and prejudice.
In order to disqualify a judge on the ground of bias and prejudice, the movant must prove the same by clear and convincing evidence. Bare allegations of the judge's partiality will not suffice. It cannot be presumed, especially if weighed against the sacred oaths of office of magistrates requiring them to administer justice fairly and equitably. [1] cralaw
Moreover, petitioners failed to prove that the purported bias or prejudice of the respondent judge stems from an extrajudicial source. Verily, this Court has ruled that to disqualify a judge on ground of bias, the bias must be shown to have stemmed from an extrajudicial source other than what the judge learned from participation in the case. [2] cralaw
Finally, whether or not there was manifest bias and prejudice on the part of respondent judge is a factual issue which is beyond the ambit of a petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. Questions that may be entertained in a petition for certiorari under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court must not involve an examination of the probative value of the evidence presented by the litigants. [3] cralaw
WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DENIED due course.
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) LUCITA ABJELINA-SORIANO
Asst. Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] cralaw Webb vs. People, 276 SCRA 243 [1997].
[2] cralaw Mercedes R. Gochan, et al. vs. Virginia Gochan, et al., 398 SCRA 323 [2003] citing People vs. Court of Appeals, 309 SCRA 705 [1999].
[3] cralaw Violeta Cabatbat, et al. vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, et al., 166 SCRA 415 [1988].
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
