Atty. Manuel J.

Laserna Jr.
Friday, April 1, 2016

Sample urgent motion to inhibit and to re-

raffle a pending case
This is a sample urgent motion to inhibit and to re-raffle a pending case prepared by our law office, for the
legal research purposes of our readers.

“x x x.

URGENT MOTION TO INHIBIT AND TO RE-RAFFLE

THE UNDERSIGNED PRIVATE COMPLAINANTS, namely, xxx, xxx, and xxx,

with the conformity of the Public/Trial Prosecutor, respectfully state:

1. The accused-appellants in Criminal Case No. xxx, namely, xxx, xxx, xxx, xxx, xxx, xxx &
xxx, and the accused-appellants in Crim. Case No. xxx, namely, xxx, xxx, xxx, xxx, xxx,
xxx, xxx, xxx, xxx, xxx & xxx,have recently appealed their conviction by the Municipal Trial
Court (MTC) of xxx, xxx, per its Decision, dated xxx, 2016 for two (2) counts of Malicious
Mischief, to this Honorable Court, presided by Hon. xxx.

The said pending appeals are docketed as Crim. Case No. xxx and Crim. Case No. xxx
before Honorable Court.

2. It will be noted that the undersigned private complainants and the accused-
appellants are the parties in a civil case pending in Branch 67 of this Honorable
Court, which is also presided by the Honorable Presiding Judge xxx, docketed
as Civil Case No. xxx and entitled “xxx vs. xxx, xxx, xxx, xxx, xxx, xxx, xxx, xxx,
xxx AND ALL O THER PERSONS UNDER THEIR EMPLOY, DIRECTION,
CONTROL AND SUPERVISION”, for INJUNCTION with DAMAGES.

3. The accused-appellants in the instant appealed criminal cases, who are

named in Par. 1 hereof, are ranking directors/officers of the xxx, the plaintiff in
the aforecited Civil Case No. xxx.

4. The undersigned private complainants in the instant appealed criminal

cases are co-defendants in the aforecited Civil Case No. xxx.
 The undersigned private complainants are ranking directors/officers of the xxx
SUBDIVISION HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC. (xxx).

5. There have been a protracted political and socio-economic conflicts and

struggles between the aforementioned two (2) groups for many years now.

The said conflicts and struggles have escalated to litigations between and among the
herein parties before the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLRUB), the National
Water Resources Board (NWRB), the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of the Province
of Rizal, the Municipal Trial Court of xxx, xxx, the Manila Water Co., Inc., and others.

6. The Honorable Presiding Judge xxx, in the abovecited Civil Case No. xxx,
has issued certain Orders, which are enumerated hereinbelow, favorable to the
plaintiff therein (xxx) and its leaders (i.e., the accused-appellants in these
appealed criminal cases).

The said Orders have adversely affected the organizational effectiveness of the leadership
of the undersigned private complainants, as among the incumbent leaders of xxx, as well
as the efficient and prompt delivery of socio-economic services by the undersigned private
complainants to the homeowners of the Xxx Subdivision, to wit:

(a) TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER, dated xxx, 2015;

(b) ORDER OF PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION, dated xxx, 2015;

(c) SHOW-CAUSE ORDER, dated xxx, 2015; and

(d) ORDER, dated xxx, 2016, denying the special affirmative defenses raised by the
undersigned private complainants in their supplemental responsive pleading as the co-
defendants in the aforecited Civil Case No. xxx.

7. It will be recalled that in the Urgent Ex-Parte Manifestation filed by the

undersigned private complainants on xxx, 2015, the undersigned private
complainants, together with the their co-defendants in the aforecited Civil Case
No. xxx, had brought to the attention of the Honorable Judge xxx the xxx, 2015
Newsletter distributed by xxx (a ranking leader of the xxx, plaintiff in the said
civil case).

In the said Newsletter xxx created that impression in the minds of the homeowners,
including the undersigned private complainants, that the Honorable Presiding Judge had,
in a partial and biased manner, prejudged the guilt of the defendants in the said pending
civil case for indirect contempt, implying that the Honorable Judge was on their side as
the movants for indirect contempt in the said pending civil case.

(Please see attached manifestation and newsletter, marked as Exhs. “1” and “2”).

8. Lest the undersigned private complainants be misconstrued by this Honorable Court, the
undersigned private complainants most respectfully and humbly wish to state that, in
filing this “motion to inhibit and to re-raffle”, the undersigned private complainants have
no malicious intention of attributing any ill, unjust or
dishonest motive against the person, name, and reputation of the Honorable Presiding
Judge Xxx.

9. This motion is being filed by the undersigned private complainants, with all
humility and with all due respect to the Honorable Presiding Judge, solely as an
honest exercise by the private complainants of their constitutional right to
substantive and procedural due process of law.

The two (2) basic dimensions of due process of law are (a) the right of a litigant to a state
of peace of mind while his case is being litigated by a trial court, and (b) the right of a
litigant to assert the duty of a trial court to maintain a public image that meets the strict
perception-based standard of “the cold neutrality or an impartial judge” or the “Caesar’s
Wife Doctrine” in Legal and Judicial Ethics.

10. In support of this motion, the undersigned private complainants

respectfully cite the relevant case of “PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS.
HON. JUSTICE GREGORY S. ONG, Chairman, Fourth Division,
Sandiganbayan, and MRS. IMELDA R. MARCOS”, G.R. Nos. 162130-39, May
5, 2006.

In the aforecited case, the petition for certiorari and prohibition with prayer for a
temporary restraining order and/or preliminary injunction filed with the Supreme Court
sought to nullify and set aside the resolutions issued by public respondent Gregory S. Ong,
Associate Justice and Chairperson of the Fourth Division of the Sandiganbayan, in
Criminal Case Nos. 17287 to 17291, 19225 and 22867 to 22870, specifically:

(a) The Resolution dated October 15, 2003 denying the motion for inhibition filed by
petitioner People of the Philippines; and,

(b) The Resolution dated December 30, 2003 denying petitioner’s motion for
reconsideration.

The petitioner PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES likewise prayed in its petition to the
Supreme Court that the said public respondent (Justice Ong) be permanently enjoined
from presiding over the trial and sitting in judgment in these ten consolidated cases
against private
respondent Ms. Imelda R. Marcos for violation of Section 3(h) of Republic Act No. 3019,
as amended, otherwise known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.

The Supreme Court noted in the said case that the aforecited case related intimately to
Civil Case No. 0141 (forfeiture case) arising from the petition for forfeiture filed by the
Presidential Commission on Good Government on behalf of the Republic of the
Philippines (Republic) to recover from former President Ferdinand E. Marcos and herein
private respondent (collectively, respondents) funds alleged to be ill-gotten and deposited
under different Swiss bank accounts in the name of several foreign foundations.
Disposing of the aforecited case, the Supreme Court cited Sec. 7, Rule 137 (inhibition and
disqualification of judges) of the Rules of Court:

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 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. (Emphasis supplied.)

The Supreme Court held therein that (a) due process necessarily requires that a hearing
is conducted before an “impartial and disinterested tribunal” because unquestionably,
every litigant is entitled to nothing less than “the cold neutrality of an impartial judge”
and (b) that “all the other elements of due process, like notice and hearing, would be
meaningless if the ultimate decision would come from a partial and biased judge.”

THUS:

“X x x .
This rule enumerates the specific grounds upon which a judge may be disqualified from
participating in a trial. It must be borne in mind that the inhibition of judges is rooted in
the Constitution, specifically Article III, the Bill of Rights, which guarantees that no
person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense without due process of law. Due
process necessarily requires that a hearing is conducted before an impartial and
disinterested tribunal because unquestionably, every litigant is entitled to nothing less
than the cold neutrality of an impartial judge. All the other elements of due process, like
notice and hearing, would be meaningless if the ultimate decision would come from a
partial and biased judge.

Relevant to the present case is the second paragraph governing voluntary inhibition.
Based on this provision, judges have been given the exclusive prerogative
to recuse themselves from hearing cases for reasons other than those pertaining to their
pecuniary interest, relation, previous connection, or previous rulings or decisions. The
issue of voluntary inhibition in this instance becomes primarily a matter of conscience
and sound discretion on the part of the judge. It is a subjective test the result of which the
reviewing tribunal will generally not disturb in the absence of any manifest finding of
arbitrariness and whimsicality.
This discretion granted to trial judges takes cognizance of the fact that these judges are in
a better position to determine the issue of voluntary inhibition as they are the ones who
directly deal with the parties-litigants in their courtrooms. Nevertheless, it must be
emphasized that the authority for voluntary inhibition does not give judges unlimited
discretion to decide whether or not they will desist from hearing a case. The decision on
whether or not judges should inhibit themselves must be based on their rational and
logical assessment of the circumstances prevailing in the cases brought before them.

X x x.”

FINALLY, the Supreme Court, in the aforecited case, held that (a) judges should avoid
“not just impropriety” in their conduct but even the “mere appearance” of impropriety for
appearance is an essential manifestation of reality”; (b) that it is essential that judges be
“above suspicion”; and (c) that a judge has the avowed duty to promote “confidence in the
judicial system”.

THUS:

“X x x.
Public respondent is reminded of the principle that judges should avoid not just
impropriety in their conduct but even the mere appearance of impropriety for appearance
is an essential manifestation of reality. In insulating the Bench from unwarranted
criticism, thus preserving a democratic way of life, it is essential that judges be above
suspicion. It bears stressing that the duty of judges is not only to administer justice but
also to conduct themselves in a manner that would avoid any suspicion of
irregularity. This arises from the avowed duty of members of the bench to promote
confidence in the judicial system. Occupying as they do an exalted position in the
administration of justice, judges must pay a high price for the honor bestowed upon
them. Hence, any act which would give the appearance of impropriety becomes, of itself,
reprehensible.

X x x.”

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully prayed that the Hon. Xxx,

Presiding Judge of this Honorable Court voluntarily INHIBIT himself from adjudicating
the instant appealed criminal cases and that the same be RE-RAFFLED to another Branch
of the Honorable Court.

FURTHER, the movants respectfully pray for such and other reliefs as may be
deemed just and equitable in the premises.

Xxx, xxx, March 21, 2016.

 X x x.”
Posted by Atty. Manuel J. Laserna Jr. at 3:13 PM
Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest

Links to this post

Create a Link

Newer PostOlder PostHome

Follow by Email

About Me
Atty. Manuel J. Laserna Jr.
ity, Metro Manila, Philippines
LASERNA JR.- Partner, Laserna Cueva-Mercader Law Offices. Admitted to the Bar in 1985 (3rd placer, 1984 bar exam). Law
FEU, Manila, 1985 to 2006 (ret.). Educ.: AB Journ., UP, Diliman, QC, 1975; Bachelor of Laws (LL.B.), cum laude, FEU, 1984;
ws (LL.M.), UST, (cand.), Manila [as FEU fellow, 1998-2000]. Honors: 3rd placer, 1984 Bar Exams (90.95%; only 22% passed);
law scholar; Cocofed law scholar; Cocofed management scholar (AIM, Makati); FEU fellow (LLM, UST). Bar leader in southern
a area since 1995. Founded Las Pinas City Bar Assn (2001). Served as director/sec./vice pres., IBP PPLM Ch., 1995-2007. -
ail "lcmlaw@gmail.com". Google Maps - "Laserna Cueva-Mercader Law Offices".
View my complete profile

Popular Posts
Qualified theft defined; proper penalty explained
Item No "x x x. The elements of the crime of theft as provided for in Article 308 9 of the Revised Penal Code
are as follows: (1) t...

"Condemn Duterte Even If You’re A Supporter. Your man may win and become president but in the process
you have lost. In making him a winner you have made yourself a loser. "
See - X - Condemn Duterte Even If You’re A Supporter "x x x. By: Carlos S. Hernandez Jr. When he advocated
for extrajudicial killings ,...

Oral defamation, slander - G.R. No. 160351

See - G.R. No. 160351 "x x x. The issues are: (1) whether the Court of Appeals erred in sustaining the
conviction of petitioner ...

Estafa (deceit/swindling) under Art. 315, Rev. Penal Code

For legal research purposes of my readers, may I share the jurisprudential part of a motion for reconsideration I
have just filed with the...

Titling of public lands

For purposes of legal research of foreign readers visiting this blog, on the subject of the legal system involving
the titling of public la...
 Estafa; sample counter-affidavit

Below is a sample counter-affidavit prepared by Atty. Manuel J. LAserna Jr. involving Estafa undergoing
preliminary investigation bef...

CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE OF DRIVERS AND OPERATORS; applicable laws; penalties; civil liabilities.

Reckless imprudence vis-à-vis simple negligence . - Art. 365 of the Revised Penal Code provides that “
reckless imprudence cons...

Jurisdiction of Philippine courts

I am presenting below a brief digest of the jurisdiction of Philippine courts as contained in BATAS PAMBANSA
Blg. 129, as amended. for the ...

Contract to sell vs. contract of sale explained - G.R. No. 188064

G.R. No. 188064 (click link) "x x x. The Court’s Ruling The petition lacks merit. The Court agrees with the ruling
of...

Estafa and Blg. 22; Complaint w/ laws and jurisprudence.

I wish to share a criminal complaint for Estafa and BP 22 that I prepared recently, with focus on the legal
research aspect thereof, for t...

Links
Ltigation, Appeals, Justice System - Laserna Cueva-Mercader Law Offices

Followers
Search This Blog

Blog Archive
 ► 2018 (447)
 ► 2017 (971)
 ▼ 2016 (712)
o ► December (110)
o ► November (51)
o ► October (27)
o ► September (16)
o ► August (36)
o ► July (40)
o ► June (24)
o ► May (34)
o ▼ April (92)
 Void marriage license by reason of a false affidav...
 Hidden/unexplained wealth of Duterte and family - ...
 Financial rehabilitation; period to give due cours...
 Powers of HLURB; powers of administrative agency a...
 HLURB has no power to appoint a rehabilitation rec...
 Financial rehabilitation; 2008 rules vs. 2013 rule...
 Warrantless search; a waiver of an illegal arrest ...
 Irregularity/illegality of arrest (warrantless arr...
 Laches bars recovery of possession, ownership
 Sale of lands by Moros; requirements under Adminis...
 Sale; remedies when price not paid.
 Contract of sale/deed of sale vs. contract to sell...
 Issue Raised for the First Time on Appeal is Barre...
 When Supreme Court may review factual findings in ...
 Prescription in labor cases; Arts. 1146, 1155 of C...
 Compromise agreement; remedies when a party fails/...
 Conduct prejudicial to the interest of the service...
 Due process is opportunity to be heard.
 Bias and partiality; proof of.
 Serious charge; penalty for gross ignorance of the...
 Filing/service of pleadings via private courier LB...
 Territorial jurisdiction of trial courts
 Gross ignorance of the law
 Psychological incapacity to marry; Article 36, Fam...
 Adoption of minor child
 Demurrer to evidence
 Agency; Articles 1884, 1887, Civil Code
 The violent genes of Duterte - Law student Duterte...
 Employee Benefits under Philippine Laws | Nicolas ...
 I have chosen Mar Roxas and Leni Robredo
 Resignation; burden of proof - when an employer in...
 Waiver, Release and Quitclaims; how interpreted in...
 Reinstatement without backwages; when allowed.
 Separation pay in lieu of reinstatement; when allo...
 Probable cause does not require an inquiry whether...
 Presumptive death; requisites; strict interpretati...
 Republic Act No. 10766 - EXTENDING THE LIFE OF THE...
 BusinessWorld | Taxability of service fees receive...
 The Liberal Party is the Party of the People... - ...
 It is not sound judicial policy to await the final...
 Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, on the...
 A magistrate is judged, not only by his official a...
 Serious charge
 Substantial evidence
 Judges may be disciplined for acts committed prior...
 Preventive suspension
 Moral turpitude
 Transgressions that are classified as serious unde...
 Discipline of judges; Section 1, Rule 140 of the R...
 "Condemn Duterte Even If You’re A Supporter. Your ...
 I pray to God to save the PH from frauds and prete...
 Pay Piatco, SC orders gov’t | Inquirer News
 Final judgment; injunction vs. annulment of judgme...
 Once a judgment attains finality, it becomes immut...
 Will there be Bar exams in Cebu City?
 Tax law; compromise and abatement remedies to the ...
 Tax law; only five years to collect | BusinessMirr...
 Ex-fiscal Catubao gets jail over P3k bribe - Polit...
 The theft of "natural-born citizen" status has bee...
 Which is the worst?
 Computation of backwages, separation pay in labor ...
 Moral and exemplary damages, attorney's fees; when...
 Discrimination based on marriage or non-marriage
 Immorality as a basis to dismiss a worker: "...pre...
 Rules of procedure are designed to secure substant...
 BSP may be represented by private counsel; RA 7653...
 Judicial notice of case records
 Violation of the chain of command and the felony o...
 How to interpret the Constitution
 Jurisdiction of courts over churches: "Courts of t...
 Interpretation of Constitution, laws: "It is not t...
 "Corporation sole" may own lands as administrator ...
 Doctrine of "corporation sole" and the churches, d...
 The true spirit of human politics is stewardship, ...
 Forfeiture proceeding is action in rem or quasi in...
 Separate judgment, Rule 36
 Hold departure order (HDO)
 BusinessWorld | Fictitious bank accounts; immediat...
 BusinessWorld | Poe and the false promise of forei...
 BusinessWorld | What would the next president’s Su...
 The Left, the Communists, the Militants, and the...
 Deportation of undesirable alien; De Lima nemesis’...
 Seven launderers of the world; money laundering in...
 No corporate alibi in labor cases; doctrine of "pi...
 Reckless imprudence resulting in damage to propert...
 Republic Act No. 10755 - AN ACT AUTHORIZING THE P...
 Republic Act No. 10754 - AN ACT EXPANDING THE BENE...
 Supreme Court Magistrate Details 3 Possible Scenar...
 Sample motion to defer issuance of writ of executi...
 Sample urgent motion to inhibit and to re-raffle a...
 Sample expanded joint judicial affidavit of two wi...
 Sample motion for reconsideration; special affirma...
o ► March (91)
o ► February (109)
o ► January (82)
 ► 2015 (778)
 ► 2014 (339)
 ► 2013 (468)
 ► 2012 (670)
 ► 2011 (489)
 ► 2010 (285)
 ► 2009 (235)
 ► 2008 (182)
 ► 2007 (114)

Total Pageviews
6,383,360

Watermark theme. Powered by Blogger.