RULE 137

Disqualification of Judicial Officers

Section 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 been 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
or valid reasons other than those mentioned above.
Section 2. Objection that judge disqualified, how made and effect. If it be claimed that an official is
disqualified from sitting as above provided, the party objecting to his competency may, in writing, file
with the official his objection, stating the grounds therefor, and the official shall thereupon proceed
with the trial, or withdraw therefrom, in accordance with his determination of the question of his
disqualification. is decision shall be forthwith made in writing and filed with the other papers in the
case, but no appeal or stay shall be allowed from, or by reason of, his decision in favor of his own
competency, until after final judgment in the case.
!
"epublic of the #hilippines
SUPREME COUR
$anila
%I"& &I'I(I)N
!.R. "os. 173#$7%7& Se'te()er 2#* 2#1#
+!en. ,Ret.- JOSE S. R.M/SC.L* JR.* #etitioner,
vs.
0O". JOSE R. 0ER"."DE1* as Justice of t2e Sandi3an)a4an5 &0 D/6/S/O"*
S."D/!."+.7." and 0E PEOPLE O8 0E P0/L/PP/"ES* "espondents.
D E C / S / O "
6/LL.R.M.* JR.* J.:
%his is a #etition for *ertiorari and #rohibition with prayer for the issuance of a %emporary "estraining
)rder +%"), see-ing to reverse and set aside the "esolution
!
dated $ay ., /001 of the
(andiganbayan in *riminal *ase Nos. /20//3/4 and /5!//3.5. %he assailed "esolution denied
petitioner6s motions for inhibition,
/
which sought to disqualify respondent 7ustice 7ose ". ernande8,
Associate 7ustice of the (andiganbayan, 9ourth &ivision, from ta-ing part in said cases.
%he facts are as follows:
#etitioner, "etired ;<en. 7ose (. "amiscal, 7r., then #resident of the Armed 9orces of the
#hilippines3"etirement and (eparation ;enefits (ystem +A9#3"(;(,,
4
signed several deeds of sale
for the acquisition of parcels of land for the development of housing projects and for other concerns.
owever, it appears that the landowners from whom the A9#3"(;( acquired the lots executed
unilateral deeds of sale providing for a lesser consideration apparently to evade the payment of
correct taxes. ence, the (enate ;lue "ibbon *ommittee conducted an extensive investigation in
!==2 on the alleged anomaly.
In its "eport dated &ecember /4, !==2, the *ommittee concluded that there were irregularities
committed by the officials of the A9#3"(;( and recommended the prosecution of those responsible,
including petitioner, who had signed the unregistered deeds of sale as A9#3"(;( #resident.
Accordingly, on 7anuary /2, !===, fourteen +!., informations were filed with the (andiganbayan
against petitioner for violation of (ection 4+e,
.
of "epublic Act +".A., No. 40!=, otherwise -nown as
the Anti3<raft and *orrupt #ractices Act, and for the crime of estafa through falsification of public
documents as defined under paragraph . of Article !>!
5
of the "evised #enal *ode, as
amended.
1
%he informations charging petitioner with violations of the Anti3<raft and *orrupt #ractices
Act were doc-eted as *riminal *ase Nos. /5!//3/5!44 while those charging estafa through
falsification of public documents were doc-eted as *riminal *ase Nos. /5!4.3/5!.5.
%hen, on 7uly />, /004, junior officers and enlisted men from elite units of the A9# too- over the
)a-wood #remier Apartments at Ayala *enter in $a-ati *ity to air their grievances about graft and
corruption in the military. In response to the incident, #resident <loria $acapagal3Arroyo created a
9act39inding *ommission +9eliciano *ommission, wherein respondent6s wife, #rofessor *arolina <.
ernande8, was appointed as one of the *ommissioners. )n )ctober !>, /004, the 9eliciano
*ommission submitted its "eport recommending, among others, the prosecution of petitioner.
#resident Arroyo then issued ?xecutive )rder No. /55 on &ecember 5, /004, creating the )ffice of a
#residential Adviser under the )ffice of the #resident to implement the recommendations of the
9eliciano *ommission.
>
#rofessor *arolina <. ernande8 was appointed as #residential Adviser in
the newly created office. (hortly thereafter, respondent 7ustice ernande8 was appointed as
Associate 7ustice of the (andiganbayan and assigned to its 9ourth &ivision.
/
)n )ctober !!, /00., eight additional informations were filed with the (andiganbayan against
petitioner. %wo were assigned to the 9ourth &ivision of the court, one for violation of ".A. No. 40!=,
doc-eted as *riminal *ase No. /20//, and the other for estafa through falsification of public
documents, doc-eted as *riminal *ase No. /20/4.
)n April 1, /001, petitioner filed two motions to inhibit 7ustice ernande8 from ta-ing part in *riminal
*ase Nos. /5!//3.5 and *riminal *ase Nos. /20//3/4 pending before the 9ourth &ivision. #etitioner
cited that 7ustice ernande86s wife, #rofessor ernande8, was a member of the 9eliciano
*ommission and was tas-ed to implement fully the recommendations of the (enate ;lue "ibbon
*ommittee, including his criminal prosecution. 9urther, the spousal relationship between 7ustice
ernande8 and #rofessor ernande8 created in his mind impression of partiality and bias, which
circumstance constitutes a just and valid ground for his inhibition under the second paragraph of
(ection !, "ule !4> of the "ules of *ourt.
In its *onsolidated *omment@)pposition,
2
the )ffice of the (pecial #rosecutor +)(#, asserted that
the grounds raised by petitioner in his motions for inhibition were anchored on mere speculations and
conjectures. It stressed that the recommendation of the 9eliciano *ommission was a product of
consensus of the members of the *ommission which was a collegial body. And even if #rofessor
ernande8 signed the "eport of the *ommission to implement the recommendations of the (enate
;lue "ibbon *ommittee, the findings of the said *ommission did not remove the presumption of
innocence in petitioner6s favor. ence, the )(# argued that the mere membership of #rof. ernande8
in the 9eliciano *ommission did not automatically disqualify 7ustice ernande8 from hearing the
criminal cases against petitioners.
)n $ay ., /001, 7ustice ernande8 issued the assailed "esolution, the dispositive portion of which
reads:
A**)"&IN<AB, accused 7ose (. "amiscal6s $otions for Inhibition are &?NI?&.
() )"&?"?&.
#etitioner did not see- reconsideration of the "esolution, but instead filed a petition for certiorari and
prohibition before this *ourt on the following grounds:
I
%? "?(#)N&?N% )N. 7)(? ". ?"NAN&?C *)$$I%%?& <"A'? A;D(? )9 &I(*"?%I)N
A$)DN%IN< %) AA*E AN&@)" ?F*?(( )9 7D"I(&I*%I)N IN "?9D(IN< %) INI;I% I$(?A9
9")$ %? *A(?( #?N&IN< ;?9)"? %? .
%
&I'I(I)N A<AIN(% #?%I%I)N?"
N)%GI%(%AN&IN< %A% DN&?" "DA? !4> ? I( &I(HDAAI9I?& %) %"B )" (I% IN
7D&<$?N% IN %?(? *A(?(I
II
%? "?(#)N&?N% .% &I'I(I)N )9 %? (AN&I<AN;ABAN I( #")*??&IN< %) ?A"
%?(? *A(?( GI%)D% )" IN ?F*?(( )9 7D"I(&I*%I)N AN& GI% <"A'? A;D(? )9
&I(*"?%I)N N)%GI%(%AN&IN< %A% I%( $?$;?", %? "?(#)N&?N% 7D(%I*? 7)(?
?"NAN&?C, I( &I(HDAAI9I?& 9")$ (I%%IN< )" %AEIN< #A"% IN I%( #")*??&IN<(I AN&,
III
%? )N. 7D(%I*? ?"NAN&?C I( &I(HDAAI9I?& 9")$ %AEIN< #A"% IN (I%%IN< )"
?A"IN< %? *A(?( A<AIN(% #?%I%I)N?" IN AAA %? *A(?( #?N&IN< ;?9)"? AAA %?
9I'? +5, &I'I(I)N( )9 %? (AN&I<AN;ABAN IN *)N(?HD?N*? )9 I( &I(HDAAI9I*A%I)N
DN&?" "DA? !4>.
=
4
?ssentially, the issue is: &id 7ustice ernande8 commit grave abuse of discretion amounting to lac-
or excess of jurisdiction in not inhibiting himself from the cases against petitioner pending before the
(andiganbayanJ
#etitioner submits that it was erroneous for 7ustice ernande8 to deny the motions to inhibit himself
under the second paragraph of (ection ! of "ule !4> of the "ules of *ourt, when in fact the basis for
his disqualification was the latter6s spousal relationship with #rofessor ernande8, which situation
was governed by the first paragraph of the said section. According to petitioner, while #rofessor
ernande8 was not directly Kpecuniarily interestedK in the case, she was more than so interested in
them because as an appointee of #resident Arroyo, she was receiving emoluments to monitor the
progress of the cases and to see to it that the recommendations of the 9eliciano *ommission are
fulfilled.
Ge deny the petition.
%he rule on inhibition and disqualification of judges is laid down in (ection !, "ule !4> of the "ules of
*ourt:
(ection !. &isqualification 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
or valid reasons other than those mentioned above.
%he "ules contemplate two -inds of inhibition: compulsory and voluntary. Dnder the first paragraph of
the cited "ule, it is conclusively presumed that judges cannot actively and impartially sit in the
instances mentioned. %he second paragraph, which embodies voluntary inhibition, leaves to the
sound discretion of the judges concerned whether to sit in a case for other just and valid reasons,
with only their conscience as guide.
!0
In denying the motions for his inhibition, 7ustice ernande8 explained that petitioner failed to impute
any act of bias or impartiality on his part, to wit:
Ghat can reasonably be gleaned from jurisprudence on this point of law is the necessity of proving
bias and partiality under the second paragraph of the rule in question. %he proof required needs to
point to some act or conduct on the part of the judge being sought for inhibition. In the instant
$otions, there is not even a single act or conduct attributed to 7ustice ernande8 from where a
suspicion of bias or partiality can be derived or appreciated. In fact, it is oddly stri-ing that the
accused does not even ma-e a claim or imputation of bias or partiality on the part of 7ustice
ernande8. Dnderstandably, he simply cannot ma-e such allegation all because there is none to be
told. If allegations or perceptions of bias from the tenor and language of a judge is considered by the
(upreme *ourt as insufficient to show prejudgment, how much more insufficient it becomes if there is
absent any allegation of bias or partiality to begin with.
!!
Ge find the above explanation well3ta-en and thus uphold the assailed "esolution upon the grounds
so stated. Ge have ruled in #hilippine *ommercial International ;an- v. &y ong #i,
!/
that the mere
imputation of bias or partiality is not enough ground for inhibition, especially when the charge is
without basis. ?xtrinsic evidence must further be presented to establish bias, bad faith, malice, or
corrupt purpose, in addition to palpable error which may be inferred from the decision or order itself.
%his *ourt has to be shown acts or conduct of the judge clearly indicative of arbitrariness or prejudice
before the latter can be branded the stigma of being biased or partial.1avvphi1
.
An allegation of prejudgment, without more, constitutes mere conjecture and is not one of the Kjust or
valid reasonsK contemplated in the second paragraph of (ection !, "ule !4> of the "ules of *ourt for
which a judge may inhibit himself from hearing the case. %he bare allegations of the judge6s partiality,
as in this case, will not suffice in the absence of clear and convincing evidence to overcome the
presumption that the judge will underta-e his noble role of dispensing justice in accordance with law
and evidence, and without fear or favor. 'erily, for bias and prejudice to be considered valid reasons
for the involuntary inhibition of judges, mere suspicion is not enough.
!4
#etitioner contends that his motions were based on the second paragraph of (ection !, "ule !4>, but
a closer examination of the motions for inhibition reveals that petitioner undoubtedly invo-ed the
second paragraph by underscoring the phrase, Kfor just or valid reasons other than those mentioned
above.K %his was an express indication of the rule that he was invo-ing. $oreover, it was specifically
stated in paragraph > of both motions that Kin accuseds mind, such circumstances militates against
the Hon. Justice Hernande and constitutes a just and valid ground for his inhibition under the !nd
paragraph, "ection 1 of #ule 1$%, in so far as the cases against accused are concerned.& ence,
there is no question that petitioner relied on the second paragraph of the "ulewhich contemplates
voluntary inhibition as basis for his motions for inhibition.
And even if we were to assume that petitioner indeed invo-ed the first paragraph of (ection !, "ule
!4> in his motions to inhibit, we should stress that marital relationship by itself is not a ground to
disqualify a judge from hearing a case. Dnder the first paragraph of the rule on inhibition, KNo 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....K %he relationship mentioned therein becomes relevant only when
such spouse or child of the judge is K'ecuniaril4 interestedK as heir, legatee, creditor or otherwise.
#etitioner, however, miserably failed to show that #rofessor *arolina <. ernande8 is financially or
pecuniarily interested in these cases before the (andiganbayan to justify the inhibition of 7ustice
ernande8 under the first paragraph of (ection ! of "ule !4>.
90ERE8ORE, the petition is DE"/ED. %he "esolution dated $ay ., /001 of the (andiganbayan in
*riminal *ase Nos. /5!//3.5 and *riminal *ase Nos. /20//3/4 is .88/RMED and UP0ELD.
Gith costs against petitioner.
() )"&?"?&.
8ootnotes
L
&esignated as additional member per (pecial )rder No. 225 dated (eptember !, /0!0.
!
#ollo, pp. 5231.. #enned by Associate 7ustice 7ose ". ernande8.
/
Id. at 413...
4
#residential &ecree No. 41!, (ection !. An Armed 9orces "etirement and (eparation
;enefits (ystem, referred to in this Act as K(ystem,K for payment of retirement and separation
benefits provided and existing laws to military members of the Armed 9orces of the #hilippines
and such similar laws as may in the future be enacted applicable to commissioned officers and
enlisted personnel of the Armed 9orces of the #hilippines is hereby established.
.
(?*. 4. *orrupt practices of public officers. M In addition to acts or omissions of public
officers already penali8ed by existing law, the following shall constitute corrupt practices of any
public officer and are hereby declared to be unlawful:
x x x x
+e, *ausing any undue injury to any party, including the <overnment, or giving any
private party any unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference in the discharge of his
5
official administrative or judicial functions through manifest partiality, evident bad faith or
gross inexcusable negligence. %his provision shall apply to officers and employees of
offices or government corporations charged with the grant of licenses or permits or
other concessions.
5
A"%. !>!. 9alsification by public officer, employee or notary or ecclesiastic minister.%he
penalty of prision mayor and a fine not to exceed 5,000 pesos shall be imposed upon any
public officer, employee, or notary who, ta-ing advantage of his official position, shall falsify a
document by committing any of the following acts:
x x x x
.. $a-ing untruthful statements in a narration of factsI
x x x x
1
#ollo, p. 5.
>
Id. at 4434..
2
Id. at .53.2.
=
Id. at !>.
!0
#agoda #hilippines, Inc. v. Dniversal *anning, Inc., <.". No. !10=11, )ctober !!, /005, .>/
(*"A 455, 410341!, citing 'ochan v. 'ochan, ..1 #hil. .44, ..1 +/004, and (eople v.
)ho,<.". No.!4=42!, April /0, /00!, 45> (*"A /=0, /=1.
!!
#ollo, p. 14.
!/
<.". No. !>!!4>, 7une 5, /00=, 522 (*"A 1!/, 14/.
!4
#agoda #hilippines, Inc. v. Dniversal *anning, Inc., supra note !0, at 41/.
1