Disqualification of Judges

Disqualification of a Judge P a g e | 1
Who is a judge?
Defnitely, as we
encounter such term,
we would picture out
someone who is
wearing a black robe
and holding a gavel.
However, theres a
more defnite
meaning as to what really a judge is. As written in the A.M. o.
!"#!$#!%#&' AD()*+, *H- -. '(D- (/ 01D+'+A2 '(D1'*
/(3 *H- )H+2+))+- 01D+'+A34, under the defnition o5 terms, a
60udge7 is defned as someone or any person who e8ercises
judicial power regardless o5 mode o5 designation or appointment.
+n technical understanding, they are the ones who settle legal
issues arising out o5 the cases which are fled under their sala or
jurisdiction. 0udges are the individuals in our judicial system who
are given various responsibilities and obligations in order to carry
out justice and 5air trial in every possible circumstances. A judge
is someone who is clothed with judicial authority to hear and
decide litigated 9uestions according to law. He is a man o5
learning who spends tirelessly the weary hours a5ter midnight
ac9uainting himsel5 with the great body o5 traditions and learning
the law.
%
He is also someone who should be o5 strict protection o5
that public trust that has been bestowed in him upon his
assumption o5 his judicial position.
*he word 6judge is employed to designate a public o:cer
selected to preside and to administer law in a court o5 justice.
;
+n
line with this, a judge is e8pected to be someone who is
possessing the 5ollowing characteristics< just, impartial, 5earless
o5 public clamor, conscientious, studious, thorough, courteous,
patient, punctual and, regardless o5 private in=uence, should
administer justice according to the law and should deal with the
patronage o5 the position as a public trust> and should not allow
1
2egal and 0udicial -thics ?@
th
-ditionA by Agpalo, ;!!B ?p. C!DA
2
'ollector o5 'ustoms vs. EillaluF, D% &'3A ;$C ?%BDCA
outside matter or his private interests to inter5ere with the
prompt and proper per5ormance o5 his o:ce.
"
+n every particular
his conduct should be reproach.
G
He is considered as the
representation o5 justice that this judicial system have been
longing. He is someone who should have the highest standard o5
integrity re9uired o5 a public o:cer, importantly, a man o5
justice.
Disqualifcation: Compulsory or Voluntary
A judge may be dis9ualifed either compulsorily or
voluntarily. 'ompulsory dis9ualifcation is provided 5or by 3ule
%"D, &ection %, par.% o5 the 3ules o5 'ourt and 'anon ", &ection $
o5 the ew 'ode o5 0udicial 'onduct. Eoluntary Dis9ualifcation is
provided 5or by &ection %, par.; o5 the 3ules o5 'ourt. +n laymans
term , people usually associate the words HdelicadeFa,
Hprejudice, Hbias, Hhostility or Hcon=ict o5 interest to 9uestion
the credibility and the 9ualifcation o5 a judge to hear a particular
case. +t can be said then that a judge could voluntarily dis9uali5y
himsel5 5rom hearing a case on any just and valid ground such
as< bias or prejudice> e8pression by him o5 opinions which may
lead the adverse party to doubt his impartiality> personal
knowledge o5 the case> and a:nity or 5ormer association with
one o5 the parties or the latters counsel.
Distinction between Mandatory or Compulsory
Disqualifcation and Voluntary Inhibition
Disqualifcation Inhibition
*he 3ules enumerates the
specifc and e8clusive grounds
under which any judge or
judicial o:cer is dis9ualifed
5rom acting as such.
*he 3ules does not e8pressly
enumerate the specifc grounds
5or inhibition but merely gives a
broad basis thereo5, i.e. good,
sound or ethical grounds.
3
th
-ditionA by Agpalo, ;!!B ?p. C!DA
4
'anon "%, 'anons o5 0udicial -thics ?Administrative (rder o. %C;,
Department o5 0ustice, August %, %BGCA> )aF vs. *iong, ;$" &'3A "CG ?%BBCA
3ules give the judicial o:cer
no discretion to try or sit in a
case.
3ules leave the matter o5
inhibition to the sound
discretion o5 the judge.
Compulsory Disqualifcation o a !udge under the "ules o
Court
&ection %, 3ule %"D o5 3ules o5 'ourt provides<
6o judge or judicial o:cer shall sit in any case in
which he, or his wi5e or child, is pecuniarily interested as heir,
legatee, creditor or otherwise, or in which he is related to either
party within the si8th degree o5 consanguinity or a:nity, or to
counsel within the 5ourth degree, computed according to the
rules o5 the civil law, or in which he has been e8ecutor,
administrator, guardian, trustee or counsel, or in which he has
presided in any in5erior court when his ruling or decision is the
subject o5 review, without the written consent o5 all parties in
interest, signed by them and entered upon the record.7
*he frst paragraph o5 the above rule enumerates the
grounds 5or compulsory dis9ualifcation o5 a judge 5rom sitting in
a case. *he e8press enumeration o5 the grounds e8cludes all
other grounds not specifed herein.
$
"ationale o #ection $
A judge sitting in a case must at all times be wholly 5ree,
disinterested, impartial and independent. *he )hilippine
'onstitution also provides that elementary due process re9uires
a hearing be5ore an impartial and disinterested tribunal. A judge
has both the duty o5< ?%A rendering a just decision> and ?;A doing
it in a manner completely 5ree 5rom suspicion as to his 5airness
and as to his integrity.
C
5
EeleF v. 'ourt o5 Appeals, "G &'3A %!B
6
,eotina v. ,onFales, G% &'3A CC
+n the case o5 compulsory dis9ualifcation, the law
conclusively presumes that a judge cannot objectively or
impartially sit in a case and, 5or that reason, prohibits him and
strikes at his authority to hear and decide it, in the absence o5
written consent o5 all the parties concerned which is aimed at
preserving the peoples 5aith and confdence in the courts o5
justice.
D
+5 a judge is compulsorily dis9ualifed under any o5 the
grounds under the frst paragraph o5 &ec.% o5 3ule %"D, he has no
choice but to withdraw 5rom the case, unless all the parties
consent thereto in writing and entered into the records.
'ontinuing with the case, without the written consent o5 all the
parties, has the 5ollowing eIects<

%. *he judge is deprived o5 his authority to continue to hear
and decide the case. +t does not, however, divest the court o5
jurisdiction. +n ,eotina v. ,onFales
@
, the 'ourt e8plained the
eIects o5 the judgeJs compulsory dis9ualifcation<
6888 *o our mind, the dis9ualifcation o5 a judge does not
necessarily render his judgment null and void. either
section % nor section ; o5 3ule %"D so states. *he
dis9ualifcation o5 the person called upon to preside over
the subject K matter o5 or the persons o5 the parties to the
said case. At most, the dis9ualifcation strikes only at the
authority o5 the challenged judge to preside over the trial
o5 the specifc case and therein to e8ercise the jurisdiction
o5 the court. +mportant is the distinction between the
jurisdiction o5 the court and the authority o5 the judge
called upon to e8ercise such jurisdiction. A judge may be
dis9ualifed to try, sit in or act in a specifc case, but his
dis9ualifcation does not destroy the jurisdiction o5 the
7
,utierreF v. &antos, %%; )hil. %@G
8
G% &'3A CC ?%BD%A
'ourt which he resides. *hus, i5 subse9uently the judgment
o5 a dis9ualifed judge should be set aside as null and void
by a higher court, the nullity stems not 5rom the courtJs
lack o5 jurisdiction but 5rom the absence o5 authority on the
part o5 the dis9ualifed judge to try the given case.7
B
;. A judge who continues to hear a case in which he is
dis9ualifed under any o5 those enumerated grounds may be held
administratively liable there5or, e8cept where all the parties
concerned have given their written consent thereto.
%!
Cases:
%A 3espondent judge violated 3ule %"D considering that ?aA
the accused in 'riminal 'ase o. @B#"B!$, is her brother#in#law,
being the husband o5 her youngest sister and, there5ore, her
relative by a:nity within the second degree, and ?bA she did not
obtain the written consent o5 all the parties in interest.
%&'""' (s) M'*'+'D
;;! &'3A ;;G, March ;;, %BB"
,acts:
'omplainant Atty. Manuel *. 1barra, on behal5 o5 his client
0uanito A. 'alderon, charges respondent, the )residing 0udge
2uFviminda Mapalad o5 the M*' o5 )ulilan, Lulacan, with grave
misconduct, knowingly rendering an unjust judgment, the
violations o5 the canons o5 0udicial -thics and the 5ailure to
decide within the mandated ninety#day period.
-eld<
&he deliberately disregarded &ection %, 3ule %"D o5 the
3evised 3ules o5 'ourt and 3ule ".%;?dA, 'anon " o5 the 'ode o5
0udicial 'onduct considering that ?aA 3oberto 'ruda, the accused
9
+bid
10
-vangelista v. Laes, C% &'3A GDC ?%BDGA
in 'riminal 'ase no. @B#"B!$, is her brother#in#law, being the
husband o5 her youngest sister and, there5ore ?respondentJsA
relative by a:nity within the second degree, and ?bA she did not
obtain the written consent o5 all the parties in interest.
*hat it was only on B August %BB% K or long a5ter the case
had been submitted 5or decision K that she became 3obertoJs
sister#in#law provides no reason 5or a departure 5rom the
enunciated rule as the above9uoted provisions impose an
absolute prohibition regardless o5 the stage in the resolution o5
the case that the relationship is established.
A decision rendered by a judge who is dis9ualifed under
the above law and 'anon may not at all be unjust. Lesides, it
must be shown that the judge himsel5 knows that such a decision
is unjust. -lsewise stated, a decision would not necessarily be
unjust simply because a judge is dis9ualifed to render it.
Mnowingly rendering an unjust judgment is a criminal oIense
defned and penaliFed under Article ;!G o5 the 3evised )enal
'ode> 5or conviction to lie, it must be proven that the judgment is
unjust and that the judge knows that it is unjust. &he could only
be as she is hereby 5ound, guilty o5 gross ignorance o5 the law
and grave misconduct.
;A 3espondent 0udge took cogniFance o5 and decided
&pecial )roceedings o. "BGC, a petition 5or correction o5 entry in
the birth record o5 her grandson, the child o5 her daughter,
violation 3ule %"D. &he also dispensed with the re9uired
publication o5 the petition which sought to correct the entry o5
the subjectJs citiFenship 5rom the stated 6/ilipino7 to 6American7.
VI++'+%. (s) MI!'"/#
;@@ &'3A $BG, April ", %BB@

,acts:
3etired 0ustice o5 the 'ourt o5 Appeals (no5re EillaluF
charged 0udge )riscilla Mijares, incumbent 0udge o5 the 3*' o5
)asay 'ity, with dishonesty, corrupt practices, grave misconduct
and immorality.
0udge Mijares allegedly took cogniFance o5 and decided
&pecial )roceedings o. "BGC, a petition 5or correction o5 entry in
the birth record o5 her grandson, 0oshua Anthony M. ,urango, the
child o5 her daughter Ma. )ilita M. ,urango, notwithstanding such
close relationship. &he also dispensed with the re9uired
publication o5 the petitioner which sought to correct the entry o5
thr subjectJs citiFenship 5rom the stated 6/ilipino7 to 6American7.
-eld:
3espondent is clearly dis9ualifed 5rom trying the case under
&ec. %, 3ule %"D, 3ules o5 'ourt and also under 3ule ".%; ?dA,
'anon " o5 the 'ode o5 0udicial 'onduct. Leing related within the
si8th degree o5 consanguinity to one o5 the parties ?petitionerA in
&pecial proceedings o. B"GC, it was mandatory 5or respondent
to have inhibited hersel5 5rom hearing the case. .hile
respondent or her daughter may not have pecuniary interest in
the case as heir, legatee, creditor or otherwise, which is her
contention 5or her e8culpation, what is violated in &ec.% o5 3ule
%"D was her taking cogniFance o5 the case despite her
relationship to a party within the si8th degree o5 consanguinity or
a:nity.
+n 0arcia () De +a *ena, %;B &'3A DCD ?%BBGA we
e8pounded on the rationable behind the rule on compulsory
dis9ualifcation o5 judges in this wise<
6*he rule on compulsory dis9ualifcation o5 a judge to hear
a case where, as in the instant case, the respondent judge is
related to either party within the si8th degree o5 consanguinity
or a:nity rests on the salutary principle that no judge should
preside in a case in which he is not wholly 5ree, disinterested,
impartial and independent. 8887
3espondent contends that the petition 5or correction o5 entry
o5 the birth record o5 her grandson does not involve controversial
matters such as those relating to civil status, citiFenship, or
nationality, but merely pertain to innocuous or clerical errors
and, there5ore, the correction can be done through summary
proceedings under Article G%; o5 the 'ivil 'ode in relation to 3ule
%!@ o5 the 3ules o5 'ourt.
-ven on the assumption that the petition 5or correction o5
entry o5 respondentJs grandson is not controversial in nature, this
does not detract 5rom the 5act that she cannot be 5ree 5rom bias
or partiality in resolving the case by reason o5 her close blood
relationship to him. +n 5act, bias was clearly demonstrated when
she waived the re9uirement o5 publication o5 the petition on the
dubious ground o5 enabling the parents o5 the minor ?her
daughter and son#in#lawA to save the publication 5ee as they
were then just 6starting to have a 5amily.7
+n any case, notice and publication o5 the hearing o5 the
petition under 3ule %!@ o5 the 3ules o5 'ourt is mandatory and
cannot be waived, particularly &ections ", G and $ thereo5.
"A *he 5act that respondent judge took cogniFance o5 the
criminal case, notwithstanding the 5act that he is related within
the second degree o5 consanguinity to private complainant ?his
brotherA is obviously a glaring violation o5 the rule on compulsory
dis9ualifcation o5 a judge to hear a case
0'"CI' (s) D/ +' */1'
;;B &'3A DCC, /ebruary B, %BBG
,acts:
-ngineer -dgardo '. garcia charged 0udge Meljohn de la )ena
in his capacity as acting judge o5 M*' o5 aval, 2eyte with
partiality, abuse o5 authority and grave abuse o5 discretion in
connection with 'riminal 'ase o. ;$DD 5or grave oral
de5amation which was fled against his wi5e, +gnacia ,. ,arcia, a
supervising nurse o5 aval District Hospital, by respondent
judgeJs brother, Dr. Melencio de la )ena.
-eld:
*he charge is based on respondent judgeJs taking cogniFance
o5 the criminal case despite the 5act that private complainant is
his brother # a relative within the second degree o5
consanguinity K in violation o5 the rule on compulsory
dis9ualifcation o5 judges under &ection %, 3ule %"D o5 the 3ules
o5 'ourt.
*he 'ourt, in this regard, will not hesitate to e8ercise its 5ull
disciplinary powers in the instant case where the violation is so
patent and the same has caused grave injustice to a party in a
criminal case. *he 5acts mani5esting respondentJs partiality are
patent in the records.
*he proIered e8cuse that 'riminal 'ase o. ;$DD has been
dragging on 5or some time due to the absence o5 the incumbent
judge and the non#designation o5 a presiding judge will not justi5y
the violation o5 a well#settled rule on compulsory dis9ualifcation
o5 judges to hear a case. 3espondent judge should have 5ormally
in5ormed the -8ecutive 0udge o5 the 3*' o5 2eyte i5, indeed, the
case has been de5erred, and therea5ter sought the designation o5
another M*' judge to take cogniFance o5 the case. He should
have 5oreseen the possibility that his actuation and motives
would have been suspect i5 he had ruled in 5avor o5 the
prosecution as his blood relationship with the private
complainant was o5 general knowledge.
Disqualifcation under the Code o !udicial Conduct
*he legal basis 5or the dis9ualifcation is contemplated in
3ule ".%;, 'anon " o5 the 'ode o5 0udicial 'onduct which
provides<
"ule 2)$3) A judge should take no part in a proceeding
where the judges impartiality might reasonably be 9uestioned.
*hese cases include among others, proceedings where<
aA the judge has personal knowledge o5 disputed
evidentiary 5acts concerning the proceeding>
bA the judge served as e8ecutor, administrator, guardian,
trustee or lawyer in the case or matters in controversy, or a
5ormer associate o5 the judge served as counsel during their
association, or the judge or lawyer was a material witness
therein>
cA the judges ruling in the lower court is the subject o5
review>
dA the judge is related by consanguinity or a:nity to a
party litigant within the si8th degree or to counsel
within the 5ourth degree>
eA the judge knows that the judges spouse or child has a
fnancial interest, as heir, legatee, creditor, fduciary, or
otherwise, in the subject matter in controversy or in a party to
the proceeding or any other interest that could be substantially
aIected by the outcome o5 the proceeding.
+n every instance the judge shall indicate the legal reason
5or dis9ualifcation. Accordingly, 3ule ".%; o5 the 'ode o5 0udicial
'onduct will then be understood as in a courts decision that the
re5usal o5 a judge to dis9uali5y himsel5 5rom sitting in an action
constitutes reversible error.
A 0udge has the duty not only to render a just and impartial
decision, but also to render it in such a manner as to be 5ree 5rom
any suspicion as to its 5airness and impartiality, and also as to
the judges integrity. /or all suitors are entitled to nothing short
o5 the cold neutrality o5 an independent, wholly 5ree,
disinterested, and impartial tribunal. *he due process cannot be
satisfed in the absence o5 that objectivity on the part o5 the
judge su:cient to reassure litigants o5 his being 5air and just.
$) &ias or *rejudice
At common law, however, a judge could not be dis9ualifed
because o5 bias, e8cept inso5ar as such bias might be in5erred
5rom the 5act o5 his pecuniary interest in the cause. evertheless,
as the common law e8panded, judicial bias was added to the list
o5 available grounds 5or seeking judicial dis9ualifcation, both by
'ongress and by the legislatures o5 most states.
+n the )hilippines, the legislature opted to consider bias as
an e8pressly stated ground o5 voluntary dis9ualifcation as the
laws applied within this direction is patterned be5ore American
system.
+n many cases in which a party or attorney seeks to
dis9uali5y a judge, the record is simple. /or e8ample, the judge is
either related to a litigating party or not. Di:cult problems may
arise in those cases in which dis9ualifcation is sought not on the
basis o5 judicial relationships or interest but on the grounds o5
perceived judicial bias or some other incapacity to 5airly sit.
+ndeed, while the e8pansion o5 the common law to permit judicial
dis9ualifcation 5or NbiasN has generally been applauded, this
e8pansion has injected into judicial dis9ualifcation jurisprudence
some o5 its most pro5ound issues.
+t should be noted that not every un5avorable opinion that
a judge may hold toward an individual or his case is properly
described by the term Nbias.N (n the contrary, bias connotes a
disposition that is somehow wrong5ul or inappropriate either
because it is undeserved, because it rests on knowledge that the
judge ought not to possess, or because it is e8cessive in degree.
A judge who presides at a criminal trial may, upon conclusion o5
the evidence, be e8ceedingly ill#disposed toward a de5endant
who has been shown to be a thoroughly reprehensible human
being. evertheless, because the judgeJs knowledge and the
opinion it produced were properly and necessarily ac9uired in the
course o5 the judicial proceeding itsel5, such judge is ordinarily
not deemed to be subject to dis9ualifcation 5or NbiasN on this
account.
%%
A judge, moreover, must shrewdly observe the stratagems
o5 the opposing lawyers, perceive their eIorts to sway him by
appeals to his predilections, and penetrate through the sur5ace o5
their remarks to their real purposes and motives. +n 5act, judges
may have an obligation to become in that sense Nbiased.N
'onse9uently, the 9uestion whether judges should be
subject to dis9ualifcation 5or NbiasNOand just how biased they
must be in order to be subject to this sanctionOhas introduced
into judicial dis9ualifcation law what is perhaps its thorniest
9uestion< )recisely how human may a judge be and still be
permitted to judgeP
$)3 +imitations on &ias as a 0round or Disqualifcation
*here is little disagreement, in principle, that a judge
conscious o5 any bias that might in=uence his o:cial action,
either against or in 5avor o5 any party to a proceeding pending
be5ore him, should decline to o:ciate over that proceeding
whether he has been challenged or not. However, because o5 the
imprecision and potential 5or abuse inherent in permitting
dis9ualifcation 5or bias, a number o5 courts have imposed
limitations on the type and degree o5 bias that a judge must
possess be5ore dis9ualifcation will be ordered on this ground.
11
3ichard -. /lamm, -s9., +ntroduction to 0udicial Dis9ualifcation &el5#&tudy
Article Q &el5#Assessment *est http<RRwww.cce#mcle.comRtestsRssC!!$a.htm
+t has 5re9uently been held, 5or e8ample, that, to be
dis9uali5ying, the alleged bias must be personal, as opposed to
judicial, in nature. +n addition, to be dis9uali5ying bias must
ordinarily be o5 a character that is su:cient to overthrow the
presumption as to the judgeJs impartiality, and, there5ore,
su:cient to deny a partyOparticularly a criminal de5endantOa
5air hearing or trial.
3) Impartiality
.hile parties are not entitled to a judge with a liberal or
generous attitude,##or to one who is 5avorably disposed to their
cause,##it is generally agreed, at least in principle, that they are
entitled to nothing less than a neutral and detached decision#
maker, operating in an atmosphere o5 total 5airness and
impartiality.
%;
2) *ersonal 4nowledge o the case
A judge is not allowed to pass judgment on the basis o5 his
personal knowledge o5 the case that he may have had prior to
the case being presented to him in court. /or instance, it maybe
that the judge overheard a man divorce his wi5e. however, i5 this
case is then brought be5ore him in court with the man claiming
he did not divorce her, the judge cannot use his prior knowledge
to decide the case. he must limit himsel5 to the evidence
presented in court. +5 he 5eels that he cannot do so under the
circumstances, he should re5use to preside over the case.
%"
5) '6nity and 'ssociation
+n law and in cultural anthropology, a:nity, as
12
3ichard -. /lamm, -s9., Dis9ualifcation 5or Lias or its Appearance &el5#&tudy
Article Q &el5#Assessment *est http<RRwww.cce#mcle.comRtestsRssC!%Ga.htm
13
http<RRen.islamtoday.netRnodeR%;;%
distinguished 5rom consanguinity, is kinship by marriage. +t is the
relation which each party to a marriage bears to the kindred o5
the other. +n -nglish, a:nity is usually signifed by adding N#in#
lawN to the degree o5 kinship. +n addition to kinship by marriage,
Na:nityN can sometimes also include kinship by adoption.
%G
Association subse9uently, is the inter relation o5 one to
another there5ore establishing a connection that would
determine ties. *hus, when a judge who is known to be
associated to a party or the partys counsel is e8pected to
dis9uali5y himsel5 5rom sitting in the course o5 the hearing 5or
5ailure to dis9uali5y himsel5 would be an establishment o5 bias,
bad 5aith, malice or corrupt purpose, in addition to palpable error
which may be in5erred 5rom the decision or order itsel5.
*rocedure or Disqualifcation
*he Lill o5 3ights, under &ection %G?%A Article +++, %B@D
)hilippine 'onstitution guarantees that No person shall be held
to answer 5or a criminal oIense without due process o5 law.N, +t is
there5ore considered a critical component o5 due process to any
litigants to be heard be5ore an impartial and disinterested
tribunal and a 5air and just judicial o:cer. As a sa5eguard to this
paramount right o5 any litigants or accused, even 5or
complainants, the 3ules o5 'ourt provided an e8press provision in
which a judge may be dis9ualifed 5rom hearing a case. ,rounds
in which a judge may be dis9ualifed 5rom handling or hearing a
case are laid down under &ection % o5 3ule %"D o5 the 3ules o5
court. +n any event a judge should be dis9ualifed 5rom
inter5ering or hearing a case, either by voluntary o5 involuntary
act, this procedure should be 5ollowed<
As stated under &ection ; o5 3ule %"D o5 the 3ules o5 'ourt<
&ec. ;. Objection that judge disqualifed, how made and
efect.# +5 it be claimed that an o:cial is dis9ualifed 5rom sitting
14
http<RRen.wikipedia.orgRwikiRA:nity
as above provided, the party objecting to his competency may,
in writing, fle with the o:cial his objection, stating the grounds
there5ore, and the o:cial shall thereupon proceed with the trial,
or withdraw there5rom, in accordance with his determination o5
the 9uestion o5 his dis9ualifcation. His decision shall be 5orthwith
made in writing and fled with the other papers in the case, but
no appeal or stay shall be allowed 5rom, or by reason o5, his
decision in 5avor o5 his own competency, until a5ter fnal
judgment in the case.
*he above provision is created to protect both the litigant
and the judge 5rom any misunderstandings concerning the
9uieting o5 the issues o5 any cases in which they are both
involved. +t is o5 no 9uestion that the judge must decide on his
competency and the same must be respected by the party
re9uesting 5or his dis9ualifcation. +n procedural and technical
annotation, the party who challenges the competency o5 the
judge must, in writing, fle with the o:cial his objection, stating
the grounds there5ore. *he judge then may decide on the matter,
i5 he wishes to continue in hearing the case but such decision
must be made in way that the peoples 5aith in the 'ourt o5
0ustice is not impaired.
+n particular scenario, i5 a judge is compulsorily dis9ualifed
under any grounds under the frst paragraph o5 &ection % o5 the
3ules o5 'ourt, he has no choice but to withdraw 5rom the case,
unless all the parties consent thereto in writing and entered into
the record.
%$
*his procedure, however, applies to both criminal
and civil cases.
&ubstantial re9uirement 5or a motion to dis9uali5y a judge
is stated in the case o5, '(&*A*-
)+M-*-2, petitioner, 3e9uest 5or the designation o5 another
judge to hear the Motion 5or 3econsideration andRor )etition 5or
3elie5 5rom the decision rendered in 'riminal 'ase o, "%!#',
15
th
-ditionA by Agpalo, ;!!B ?p. C;"A
)eople vs. 3uben de la 'ruF, o5 the 'ourt o5 /irst +nstance o5
+locos &ur, Lranch +E, 'andon, +locos &ur, in such case the court
has the occasion to put emphasis on this< *he procedure
prescribed 5or the dis9ualifcation o5 judges ?3ule %"DA must be
substantially 5ollowed. (bjection to the competency o5 the judge
should be fled with him in writing, and the judge shall determine
his 9ualifcation. *he mere allegation in an unverifed letter that
a judge had committed an act o5 5alsifcation is not su:cient 5or
any 'ourt to designate another judge to hear such case.
Also in 'riminal 'ase o. B$#G!G, the court had the
occasion to say that< A perusal o5 the records will reveal that
petitioners 5ailed to adduce any e8trinsic evidence to prove that
respondent judge was motivated by malice or bad 5aith in issuing
the assailed rulings. )etitioners simply lean on the alleged series
o5 adverse rulings o5 the respondent judge which they
characteriFed as palpable errors. *his is not enough. *hus, it is
insu:cient to decide on the matter whether or not it is legal to
dis9uali5y the judge.
+t has been decided on long line o5 cases that a judge may
either voluntarily dis9uali5y himsel5 or may be compulsorily
dis9ualifed 5rom handling or hearing a case. &uch objective is to
maintain the right o5 each individual to a 5air judgment and to
protect every litigants right o5 due process. However, there are
instances wherein a judge may decide not to inhibit himsel5 5rom
hearing a case i5 he believes that he is 9ualifed to handle such
case and he has no related cases under the grounds in which a
judge shall be dis9ualifed 5rom handling such case as stated
under &ection % o5 3ule %"D o5 the 3ules o5 'ourt.
-owe(er7 any parties who wish to disqualiy a judge
must ha(e their objections in writing and such allegations
must be supported by pieces o e(idence) Mere
speculations are not protected by law) 8he motion must
be o precise and concise statement in which would
discuss the reasons why such party is see4ing or
disqualifcation o the judge) 0rounds in which to
disqualiy a judge must be mentioned and such ground or
grounds must be supported by pieces o e(idence)
Cases:
0%8'10 vs. C9%"8 9, '**/'+#
,.3. o. %;GDC! 0uly @, %BB@
,acts:
*he private petitioners fled a Motion to +nhibit 0udge
Marino M. de la 'ruF, 0r., alleging that 5or almost two ?;A weeks
5rom April %;, %BB$, respondent 0udge de la 'ruF, 0r. did not act
on their motion 5or the issuance o5 an alias writ o5 possession and
appointment o5 a special sheriI which led them to seek the aid o5
the (:ce o5 the 'ourt Administrator to direct the respondent
judge to act on said motion. *he respondent 0udge de la 'ruF, 0r.
issued the assailed order denying the motion 5or inhibition but
voluntarily inhibited himsel5, thus<
.H-3-/(3-, the urgent motion 5or inhibition is
hereby denied.
However, as a5orestated, the )residing 0udge
voluntarily inhibits himsel5 5rom 5urther sitting in this
case.
2et the entire records o5 the case be immediately
5orwarded to the (:ce o5 the -8ecutive 0udge 5or
immediate re#raSe in view o5 the other pending
incidents to be passed upon by the judge to whom
this case will be assigned.
*he private petitioner sfled a petition 5or certiorari,
prohibition and mandamus with a prayer 5or the issuance o5 a
temporary restraining order be5ore the 'ourt o5 Appeals.
Issue:
.hether or not judges may voluntarily inhibit themselves
even i5 there is no legal and 5actual basis 5or such inhibition.
Decision:
*he court decided in negative. .hile the second paragraph
o5 &ection % o5 3ule %"D o5 the 3ules o5 'ourt does not e8pressly
enumerate the specifc grounds 5or inhibition and leaves it to the
sound discretion o5 the judge, such should be based on just and
valid reasons.
%C
*he import o5 the rule on the voluntary inhibition
o5 judges is that the decision on whether or not to inhibit is le5t to
the sound discretion and conscience o5 the trial judge based on
his rational and logical assessment o5 the circumstances
prevailing in the case brought be5ore him. *he discretion given to
trial judges is an acknowledgment o5 the 5act that these judges
are in a better position to determine the issue o5 inhibition as
they are the ones who directly deal with the parties#litigants in
their courtrooms.
0/98I1' vs. 091.'+/.
,acts:
(n (ctober ;D, %BC$ the petitioner fled a motion to
dis9uali5y the respondent judge 5rom hearing the criminal case,
alleging as ground there5ore the relationship o5 the latter to the
complainant 'alderon within the si8th civil degree by a:nity O a
dis9ualifcation e8plicitly spelled out in section % o5 3ule %"D o5
the 3ules o5 'ourt. *he motion 5or dis9ualifcation, opposed by
16
3odol5o -. )arayno,et.al. v. Hen. +luminado Meneses,et.al., ,.3. o.
%%;C@G, April ;C, %BBG T;"% &'3A @!DU.
the respondent provincial fscal, was denied by the respondent
judge upon the ground that he bears no relationship either to the
plaintiI, the )eople o5 the )hilippines, or to the de5endant, Dr.
0ose ,. ,eotina, the only parties he considers as litigants in the
criminal case. *he respondent judge also considered the
complainant 'alderon as a mere witness in the criminal action,
not a party within the contemplation o5 section % o5 3ule %"D.
*wice, on ovember C, %BC$ and on March %, %BCC, the petitioner
moved 5or reconsideration o5 the order denying his motion 5or
dis9ualifcation, to no avail. (n April %;, %BCC the respondent
provincial fscal moved 5or the dismissal o5 the petition.
Issue:
.hether or not the petitioner may appeal the decision o5
the judge involving his competency to handle the case while
such case is still pending.
Decision:
*he 'ourt decided in negative. .here, however, the
prosecution or the oIended party seeks the judgeJs
dis9ualifcation, the restriction fnds no application. /or where the
judge decides in 5avor o5 his own competency, proceeds to try
the case, and renders a verdict o5 ac9uittal, the prosecution or
oIended party has neither the right to appeal nor any plain,
speedy and ade9uate remedy in the ordinary course o5 law to
have the ruling o5 the judge on the motion seeking his
dis9ualifcation reviewed on appeal. However, there are remedies
to aggrieved party i5 such denial o5 dis9ualifcation made the
party a victim o5 an un5air and partial trial because o5 the judgeJs
bias or prejudice.

Disqualification of Judges

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Disqualification of Judges

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Disqualification of a Judge P a g e | 1

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen