[A.M. No. 00-9-421-RTC. October 4, 2000]

RE: INHIBITION OF JUDGE TEOFILO U. BALUMA IN CIVIL CASE NO. 6735.

SECOND DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated OCT 4 2000.

A.M. No. 00-9-421- RTC (Re: Inhibition of Judge Teofilo U Baluma in Civil Case No. 6735.)

This concerns the inhibition of Judge Teofilo U. Baluma of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 1, Tagbilaran City, from the consideration of Civil Case No. 6735, entitled "Anna Barbara Fernandez-Gallardo v. Patrick Gallardo," for annulment of marriage and/or declaration of nullity of marriage.

It appears that Judge Baluma and the counsel for complainant Barbara Fernandez-Gallardo acted as sponsors at the wedding of the branch clerk of court on June 3, 2000. For this reason, the day before, or on June 2, 2000, Judge Baluma asked the parties if they had any objection to his trying the case. In response, the defendant Patrick Gallardo filed a motion for Judge Baluma's inhibition on the ground that the judge lacked the requisite neutrality. Judge Baluma granted the motion, and his order was forwarded to the Court by Executive Judge Baudillo K. Dosdos of the Regional Trial Court, Tagbilaran City. In his memorandum, dated August 28, 2000, the Court Administrator recommends that .Judge Baluma's order of inhibition be set aside for the reason that "the ground stated therein one of those specifically enumerated in Sec. 1, Rule 137 of the Rules of Court, nor in Rule 3.12 of the Code of Judicial Conduct."

The question here is not so much whether this case falls under any of the instances mentioned in the first paragraph of Rule 137, �1 where the written consent of both parties is needed for the judge concerned to sit in the case. The question is whether Judge Baluma acted in accordance with the second paragraph of Rule 137, �1 which provides that:

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.

The Court finds Judge Baluma's action to be proper. There was apprehension on the part of the defendant's counsel that Judge Baluma would be less than objective given the judge's relation to the complainant's counsel at the wedding of his branch clerk of court. The judge, wishing to erase such apprehension and assure the defendant and his counsel that the case would be decided impartially, correctly desisted from deciding the case. Judge Baluma acted in accordance with the ruling in Pimentel v. Salanga, 21 SCRA 160, 167 (1967), that a judge should exercise his discretion in a way that the people's faith in the courts of justice is not impaired. A salutary norm is that he reflect on the probability that a losing party might nurture at the back of his mind the thought that the judge had unmeritoriously tilted the scales of justice against him.

For the foregoing reasons, the Court RESOLVED to APPROVE Judge Baluma's order of inhibition and to REFER this case back to the Court Administrator for recommendation as to who will hear and decide Civil Case No. 6735 in lieu of Judge Baluma.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) TOMASITA B. MAGAY-DRIS

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