Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2007 > April 2007 Resolutions > [G.R. No. 176864 : April 24, 2007] EOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. HUBERT JEFFREY P. WEBB, ET AL. :

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of the Court En Banc dated April 24, 2007

G.R. No. 176864 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. HUBERT JEFFREY P. WEBB, ET AL.

In a letter dated April 4, 2007, Lauro G. Vizconde, private complainant, requests that Justices Antonio T. Carpio, Conchita Carpio Morales and Dante O. Tinga inhibit themselves from participating in the deliberation of the instant case.

The grounds relied upon by Mr. Vizconde for the inhibition of the said Justices are:

1. Justice Antonio T. Carpio is very a close associate of the Webb family and was a defense witness for accused-appellant Hubert Jeffrey Webb;

2. Justice Conchita Carpio Morales is a close relative of Justice Carpio. She is a member of the Third Division of this Court which acquitted accused Gerardo Biong in G.R. No. 142262 related to the present case; and

3. Justice Dante O. Tinga is a "mortal political enemy "of the late Senator Rene Cayetano, the lead private prosecutor in this case.

Sec. 1, Rule 137 of the Revised Rules of Court provides:

Sec. 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 and valid reasons other than those mentioned above.

While the second paragraph does not expressly enumerate the specific grounds for inhibition and leaves it to the sound discretion of the judge, such should be based on just and valid reasons.^[1] Whether judges should inhibit themselves from a case rests on their own "sound discretion." Otherwise stated, inhibition partakes of voluntariness on the part of the judges themselves. This Court has to be shown acts or conduct of a judge, or a Justice clearly indicative of arbitrariness or prejudice before the latter can be branded the stigma of being biased or partial^[2] and should thus recuse himself from sitting in a case.

Justice Antonio T. Carpio volunteered to inhibit himself from the present case considering that he was a witness for the defense in the proceedings before the trial court. There is thus no need for any motion or request for his inhibition.

Justices Carpio Morales and Tinga are not inhibiting themselves.

Obviously, Mr. Vizconde's grounds for their inhibition are bias and prejudice.

This Court has ruled that bias and prejudice, to be considered valid reasons for the inhibition of judges, must be proved with clear and convincing evidence. Bare allegations of partiality and prejudgment will not suffice. These cannot be presumed, especially if weighed against the sacred obligation of judges whose oaths of office require them to administer justice without respect to person and to do equal right to the poor and the rich."^[3]

WHEREFORE, the Court RESOLVES to ALLOW Justice Antonio T. Carpio to voluntarily inhibit himself from the instant case. Mr. Vizconde's request to inhibit Justice Conchita Carpio Morales and Justice Dante O. Tinga is DENIED.

SO ORDERED.

^Endnotes:

---

[1] OC No. 01-19. November 27, 2001] - 11 OCT. 2001 LETTER-COMPLAINT OF DAVID TO JUDGE PAAS citing Parayno v. Meneses, 231 SCRA 807 [1994].

^[2] Dimo Realty & Development, Inc. and Luz M. Dizon, v. Leonardo P. Dimaculangan, G.R. No. 130991. March 11, 2004, 425 SCRA 376; Estrada v. Desierto, G.R. Nos. 146710-15, March 2, 2001, 353 SCRA 452, 581, citing Gabol v. Riodique, 65 SCRA 505 (1975).

^[3] Dimo Realty & Development, Inc. And Luz M. Dizon v. Leonardo P. Dimaculangan, id.; Estrada v. Desierto, id., pp. 582-583, G.R. Nos. 146710-15, citing People v. Court of Appeals, 309 SCRA 705 (1999); and Soriano v. Angeles, 339 SCRA (2000); and Go v. Court of Appeals, 221 SCRA 397 (1993).