You are on page 1of 9

G.R. No. 106087. April 7, 1993.

so strong as to convince the court that the accused is not evidence to prove the charge. Bare allegations of partiality
entitled to bail. Hence, the similarity of the nature and and prejudgment will not suffice. Bias and prejudice
procedure of the hearings for an application for bail and cannot be presumed especially if weighed against a judge's
ROLITO GO Y TAMBUNTING, petitioner,
the cancellation of the same. sacred obligation under his oath of office to administer
vs.
justice without respect to person and do equal right to the
THE COURT OF APPEALS, THE HON. BENJAMIN V. PELAYO,
poor and the rich.
PRESIDING JUDGE, BRANCH 168, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, 3. LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS; DISQUALIFICATION OF
NCJR, PASIG, METRO MANILA and THE PEOPLE OF THE JUDGES; ESSENCE OF RULE ON DISQUALIFICATION OF
PHILIPPINES, respondents. JUDGES. The Constitution commands that in all criminal 7. ID.; ID.; IN CASE AT BAR, THE ACT OF RESPONDENT
prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to have "a JUDGE OF NOT SUSPENDING HEARING OF CASE AFTER
speedy, impartial, and public trial." This right is a DENIAL OF PETITIONER'S MOTION FOR RECUSATION AND
Law Firm of Raymundo A. Armovit for petitioner.
derivation and elaboration of the more fundamental right DURING PENDENCY OF PETITION CHALLENGING HIS ORDERS
to due process of law. The rule on the disqualification of DENYING THE MOTION FOR RECUSATION AND THE MOTION
The Solicitor General for public respondents. judges is a mechanism for enforcing the requirements of TO SUSPEND PROCEEDINGS AND TRANSFER VENUE OUTSIDE
due process. METRO MANILA NOT PROOF OF PARTIALITY. In the case at
hand, respondent judge acted in accordance with the Rules
SYLLABUS
and prevailing jurisprudence when he proceeded with the
4. ID.; ID.; REASON FOR REQUIREMENT OF IMPARTIALITY ON
trial after denying petitioner's Motion for Recusation.
PART OF JUDGE. "It is now beyond dispute that due
1. REMEDIAL LAW; CRIMINAL PROCEDURE; BAIL; NATURE OF Petitioner cannot, therefore, cite the fact that respondent
process cannot be satisfied in the absence of that degree of
BAIL PROCEEDINGS. Respondent judge is correct in judge did not suspend hearing the case during the
objectivity on the part of a judge sufficient to reassure
appreciating the nature of the bail proceedings. "[T]he pendency of this petition as proof of his claim that the
litigants of his being fair and being just. Thereby there is
hearing of an application for bail should be summary or judge is partial.
the legitimate expectation that the decision arrived at
otherwise in the discretion of the court. By 'summary
would be the application of the law to the facts as found by
hearing' [is] meant such brief and speedy method of
a judge who does not play favorites." The "cold neutrality 8. ID.; ID.; IN CASE AT BAR, THE ACT OF RESPONDENT
receiving and considering the evidence of guilt as is
of an impartial judge," although required primarily for the JUDGE OF OVERRULING PETITIONER'S OBJECTION TO THE
practicable and consistent with the purpose of the hearing
benefit of the litigants, is also designed to preserve the ADMISSIBILITY OF THE EXTRAJUDICIAL STATEMENT OF A
which is merely to determine the weight of the evidence
integrity of the judiciary and more fundamentally, to gain PROSECUTION WITNESS WHO DID NOT TESTIFY THEREON,
for the purpose of bail. In such a hearing, the court 'does
and maintain the people's faith in the institutions they have NOT PROOF OF BIAS; REASON. The first of these allegedly
not sit to try the merits or to enter into any nice inquiry as
erected when they adopted our Constitution. The notion "palpably biased and hostile orders" was that issued by
to the weight that ought to be allowed to the evidence for
that "justice must satisfy the appearance of justice" is an respondent judge on August 14, 1992 overruling petitioner's
or against accused, nor will it speculate on the outcome of
imposition by the citizenry, as the final judge of the objection to the admissibility of an affidavit of Geronimo
the trial or on what further evidence may be therein
conduct of public business, including trials, upon the courts Gonzaga offered by the prosecution. Petitioner contends
offered is admitted.' . . . The course of the inquiry may be
of a high and uncompromising standard in the proper that respondent judge should not have admitted the
left to the discretion of the court which may confine itself
dispensation of justice. extrajudicial statements of Gonzaga because the latter did
to receiving such evidence as has reference to substantial
not take the witness stand to affirm the statements
matters avoiding unnecessary thoroughness in the
contained in the document presented by the prosecution.
examination and cross-examination of witnesses and 5. ID.; ID.; EFFECT OF MOTION FOR INHIBITION, DENIAL OF
Petitioner suspected that respondent judge was trying to
reducing to a reasonable minimum the amount of MOTION FOR INHIBITION, AND PETITION CHALLENGING
bolster the evidence for the prosecution. This contention is
corroboration particularly on details that are not essential DENIAL OF MOTION FOR INHIBITION. Hence, if the trial
without merit. The mere fact that the trial judge overruled
to the purpose of the hearing." judge decides to deny a motion for inhibition based on Rule
petitioner's objection to the admissibility of a particular
137, Sec. 1, par. 2, he shall proceed with the trial, unless
piece of evidence is not proof of bias. In Jandionco v.
of course restrained by either the Court of Appeals or by
2. ID.; ID.; ID.; PROCEDURE IN GRANT OF BAIL IS SIMILAR TO Pearanda, it was held that "[d]ivergence of opinions
this Court. The mere filing of a motion for inhibition before
PROCEDURE IN CANCELLATION OF BAIL. Although the between a judge hearing a case and a party's counsel, as to
the trial court or a petition before either the Court of
proceedings conducted by respondent judge were not for applicable laws and jurisprudence, is not a sufficient
Appeals or the Supreme Court challenging an order of the
an application for bail but to cancel that which was issued ground to disqualify the judge from hearing the case on the
trial judge denying a motion for inhibition will not deprive
to petitioner, the principles and procedure governing ground of bias and manifest partiality." If petitioner
the judge of authority to proceed with the case. Otherwise,
hearings on an application for bail were correctly applied disagrees with the judge's ruling, he may still question the
by the expedient of filing such motion or petition, although
by respondent judge in the cancellation of bail proceedings admissibility of the evidence when he files an appeal, in
the same be lacking in merit, a party can unduly delay the
since the bail was issued by this Court in G.R. No. 101837 case a judgment of conviction is rendered. To conclude,
trial.
without prejudice to any lawful order which the trial court however, that respondent judge, by overruling the
may issue in case the Provincial Prosecutor moves for the objection raised by petitioner's counsel, was trying to
cancellation of the bail. The grant of bail was made 6. ID.; ID.; EVIDENCE REQUIRED IN DISQUALIFICATION OF strengthen the prosecution's evidence is not only baseless
without prejudice because where bail is not a matter of JUDGE; BIAS AND PREJUDICE NOT PRESUMED. While bias because there was no evidence given to support this
right, as in this case, the prosecution must be given the and prejudice, which are relied upon by petitioner, have conclusion, but also premature because at that stage, the
opportunity to prove that there is a strong evidence of been recognized as valid reasons for the voluntary judge was not yet appreciating the merits and weight of
guilt. In the cancellation of bail proceedings before him, inhibition of the judge under Rule 137, Sec. 1, par. 2, the the particular piece of evidence in question but was merely
the judge was confronted with the same issue as in an established rule is that mere suspicion that a judge is ruling on its admissibility. Petitioner's conclusion that "the
application for bail, i.e., whether the evidence of guilt is partial is not enough. There should be clear and convincing offer and admission of Gonzaga's hearsay 'eyewitness'
statement suggest a sinister concert to simulate evidential held that erroneous rulings do not always constitute "A lawyer shall abstain from scandalous, offensive or
strength" is, if not suggestive of paranoia, at the very least, evidence of bias. In Luciano v. Mariano, we made the menacing language or behaviour before the courts." The
an overreaction. pronouncement that "[t]he mere fact that the judge has next succeeding rule, Rule 11.03 adds: "A lawyer shall not
erroneously ruled against the same litigant on two or more attribute to a judge motives not supported by the record or
occasions does not create in our minds a decisive pattern of having materiality to the case."
9. ID.; ID.; IN CASE AT BAR, THE ACT OF RESPONDENT
malice on the part of the judge against that particular
JUDGE OF CONSIDERING THE CANCELLATION OF BAIL
litigant. This is not an unusual occurrence on our courts . .
PROCEEDINGS RIPE FOR RESOLUTION AND REFUSING TO 13. ID.; ID.; REASON FOR THE REQUIREMENT. To be sure,
." Moreover, the fact that the erroneous order issued by a
ALLOW PETITIONER'S COUNSEL TO PRESENT ANYMORE the adversarial nature of our legal system has tempted
judge can be remedied and was actually corrected, as in
WITNESSES, NOT MOTIVATED BY BIAS; REASON. The other members of the bar, in pursuing their duty to advance the
this case, militates against the disqualification of the judge
supervening event allegedly demonstrating the judge's interests of their clients, to use strong language. But this
on the ground of bias or partiality.
partiality occurred during one of the hearings concerning privilege is not a license to malign our courts of justice.
the prosecution's motion for the cancellation of petitioner's Irreverent behavior towards the courts by members of the
bail. On September 28, 1992, after eleven (11) witnesses 11. ID.; ID.; IN CASE AT BAR, MOTION FOR RECUSATION IS bar is proscribed, not so much for the sake of the
had been presented for the prosecution and two (2) for the ANOTHER DILATORY MOVE. In the case at hand, the temporary incumbent of the judicial office, but more
defense, respondent judge considered the cancellation of Motion for Recusation filed by petitioner must be viewed in importantly, for the maintenance of respect for our judicial
bail proceedings ripe for resolution and refused to allow the light of his lawyers' many attempts to suspend the system, so necessary for the country's stability. "Time and
petitioner's counsel to present anymore witnesses. The proceedings before the respondent judge. Before the trial again, this Court has admonished and punished, in varying
reasons given by respondent judge for his ruling were: (1) court, petitioner tried at least eight (8) times, not merely degrees, members of the bar for statements, disrespectful
the proceeding in the cancellation of bail is summary and to reset the scheduled hearings, but to suspend the trial of or irreverent, acrimonious or defamatory, of this Court or
different from the hearing on the merits; (2) the court the case itself. The following pleadings filed by petitioner the lower courts . . . To be sure, lawyers may come up with
need not receive exactly the same number of witnesses before respondent judge all prayed either to suspend the various methods, perhaps more effective, in calling the
from both the prosecution and the defense; and (3) the proceedings entirely or for the respondent judge to delay Court's attention to the issues involved. The language
counsel for petitioner previously limited himself to two (2) the disposition of a particular issue . . . Before this Court, vehicle does not run short of expressions, emphatic but
witnesses as borne out by the record of the case . . . petitioner has already filed three (3) petitions assailing respectful, convincing but not derogatory, illuminating but
Having determined that respondent judge made a proper various orders of respondent judge in connection with the not offensive."
appreciation of the nature of the bail proceedings before single murder case pending against him. Apart from the
him, we likewise hold that it was within his discretion to present petition which is docketed as G.R. No. 106087,
14. ID.; ID.; AN INSTANCE OF HIGHLY DEROGATORY,
limit the number of witnesses for petitioner. The power of petitioner has previously filed two (2) other petitions
OFFENSIVE AND CONTEMPTUOUS LANGUAGE TOWARD A
the court in the bail proceedings to make a determination docketed as G.R. Nos. 101837 and 105424. In all three (3)
JUDGE. Indeed, in the Motion for Reconsideration,
as to whether or not the evidence of guilt is strong "implies petitions, petitioner applied for a temporary restraining
counsels for petitioner describe as "unparalleled for sheer
a full exercise of judicial discretion." If the trial judge order to have the proceedings before the trial court held in
malevolence" respondent judge's allegedly erroneous
believes that the evidence before him is sufficient for him abeyance. The murder case involving only one accused, the
assumptions. Petitioner's lawyers further stated:
to rule on the bail issue, after giving both parties their petitioner, has become unnecessarily complicated and the
"Petitioner's counsel, citing the above proceedings,
opportunity to present evidence, it is within his authority proceedings before the trial court protracted, as can be
contested the trial judge's baseless, nay despotic attempt
to consider the bail proceedings ripe for resolution. In any gleaned from the fact that between the filing of the
to muzzle his right to be heard in his defense. . ." The trial
case, respondent judge acceded to petitioner's request and information on July 11, 1991 and the end of last year or
judge's actions were also branded as an "obviously unholy
allowed him to present more witnesses in the bail December 31, 1992, the records of the case now consist of
rush to do petitioner in . . ." In the Urgent Motion filed by
proceedings. In fine, the Court holds that the respondent four (4) volumes and the transcript of stenographic notes
petitioner on December 16, 1992, respondent judge is
judge's ruling on September 28, 1992 considering the have reached a total of one thousand five hundred and
alleged to have: (a) "generated belief of his being under
prosecution's motion for cancellation of bail ripe for twenty three (1523) pages. Hearings are still being
contract to do the prosecution's bidding;" (2) "evinced
resolution on the basis of the evidence already presented conducted. When taken in the light of petitioner's repeated
contempt for Supreme Court case law;" and (3) "dishonored
was not motivated by bias or prejudice. attempts to have the proceedings in the murder case
his judicial oath and duty to hear before he condemns,
suspended and his lawyers' transparent maneuvers for the
proceed upon inquiry, and render judgment on a man's
needless protraction of the case, the Motion for Recusation
10. ID.; ID.; IN CASE AT BAR, RESPONDENT JUDGE'S ORDER liberty only after a full trial of the facts." . . . In light of
can only be viewed as another dilatory move and the
ALLOWING PETITIONER'S ARRAIGNMENT AND TRIAL the above doctrines and jurisprudence, as well as the
present Motion for Reconsideration a further ploy to stall
WITHOUT BENEFIT OF PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION, NOT inherent power and authority of this Court to cite members
hearings.
NECESSARILY PROOF OF PARTIALITY. Petitioner, in this of the Bar in contempt and to discipline them, we are of
Motion for Reconsideration, restates his argument in the the opinion that the language used by petitioner's lawyers
Petition that the respondent judge is biased, as evidenced 12. ID.; CONDUCT REQUIRED OF A LAWYER BEFORE COURTS is highly derogatory, offensive and contemptuous.
by his Order dated July 17, 1991 which in effect allowed AND JUDICIAL OFFICERS. The Rules of Court commands
petitioner's arraignment and trial without the benefit of a members of the bar "[t]o observe and maintain the respect
RESOLUTION
preliminary investigation. It is true that in Go v. Court of due to the courts of justice and judicial officers."
Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 101837, February 11, 1992, a Reinforcing this rule of conduct is the Code of Professional
divided Court nullified respondent judge's July 17, 1991 Responsibility which states in Canon 11 the following: "A ROMERO, J p:
Order and ordered that a preliminary investigation be lawyer shall observe and maintain the respect due to the
conducted. But the erroneous Order of respondent judge is courts and to judicial officers and should insist on similar
not necessarily proof of partiality. In People v. Lacson, we conduct by others." Rule 11.03 of the Code further states:
This is a Motion for Reconsideration of this Court's omnibus motion for immediate release and preliminary of the Provincial Jail of Pasig to take custody of petitioner
Resolution dated September 23, 1992 denying petitioner's investigation dated July 11, 1991 as a petition for bail. was issued on August 5, 1991.
Petition and affirming the Decision and Resolution
promulgated on March 9, 1992 and June 26, 1992,
On July 19, 1991, petitioner filed a petition for certiorari, On August 8, 1991, petitioner filed a Motion for Recusation
respectively, of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No.
prohibition and mandamus questioning the July 17, 1991 14 praying that respondent judge inhibit himself from
26305. 1 The CA Decision and Resolution upheld the
Order of respondent judge. On the same day, petitioner hearing the case. The motion was denied by respondent
following: (1) respondent Judge Benjamin V. Pelayo's Order
filed before the trial court a motion to suspend all the judge in his Order dated September 4, 1991. 15
dated September 4, 1991 which denied petitioner's Motion
proceedings pending the resolution of the petition filed
for Recusation; and (2) respondent judge's Order dated
before the Supreme Court. 3 This motion was denied by
September 17, 1991 denying petitioner's Motion to Suspend On August 22, 1991, petitioner filed a Motion to Suspend
respondent judge. 4
Proceedings and to Transfer Venue Outside Metro Manila. Proceedings and Transfer Venue Outside Metro Manila
which was denied by respondent judge on September 17,
On July 23, 1991, petitioner voluntarily surrendered to the 1991. 16
A review of the antecedent facts of this case, particularly
CAPCOM. Upon motion 5 by petitioner, the respondent
those wherein respondent Judge participated, is in order to
judge issued an Order 6 directing "the accused's continued
arrive at a just and correct assessment of his acts vis-a-vis Petitioner was arraigned on August 23, 1991. In view of his
detention at the CAPCOM until such time as the Court shall
the petitioner. refusal to enter a plea, a plea of "Not Guilty" was entered
have properly determined the place where accused should
for him by the trial court. 17
be detained."
On July 2, 1991, Eldon Maguan was shot inside his car along
Wilson Street, San Juan, Metro Manila. After conducting an In the meantime, this Court, by Resolution dated July 24,
On July 29, 1991, the National Bureau of Investigation
investigation of the shooting incident, the police identified 1991, remanded to the Court of Appeals the petition filed
wrote a letter 7 to the trial court requesting that custody
petitioner Rolito Go as the prime suspect in the commission by petitioner assailing the July 17, 1991 Order of the trial
of petitioner be transferred to the Bureau in view of an
of the crime. On July 8, 1991, petitioner, accompanied by court.
investigation for illegal possession of firearms involving
two lawyers, presented himself before the San Juan Police
petitioner.
Station. He was arrested and booked for the shooting of
On August 27, 1991, petitioner filed a petition for habeas
Maguan. The police filed a complaint for frustrated
corpus before the Court of Appeals.
homicide with the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of On the same date, July 29, 1991, the trial court issued an
Rizal. Order 8 granting the NBI temporary custody of petitioner
subject to the following conditions: (a) the petitioner is to On September 23, 1991, the Court of Appeals rendered a
be accorded his constitutional rights during the consolidated decision dismissing the two petitions.
On July 11, 1991, an information for murder was filed
investigation; (b) the NBI investigation is to be conducted However, upon petition by petitioner, this Court by an 8-6
against petitioner before the Regional Trial Court, Pasig,
only during office hours and petitioner is to be returned to vote in G.R. No. 101837 issued a decision reversing the, CA
Metro Manila, the victim Eldon Maguan having died on July
the custody of the CAPCOM at the end of each day; and (c) decision and ordering (a) the Provincial Prosecutor to
9, 1991.
the NBI should report to the trial court the status of the conduct a preliminary investigation; and (b) the release of
investigation. petitioner without prejudice to any order that the trial
On the same day, July 11, 1991, counsel for petitioner filed court may issue, should the Provincial Prosecutor move for
with the Prosecutor an omnibus motion praying for cancellation of bail at the conclusion of the preliminary
On July 30, 1991, petitioner filed a motion 9 before the
petitioner's immediate release and for a preliminary investigation.
trial court praying that the Order dated July 29, 1991 be
investigation. Provincial Prosecutor Mauro Castro
nullified and recalled.
interposed no objection to petitioner's being granted
After conducting a preliminary investigation pursuant to
provisional liberty on a cash bond of P100,000.00.
this Court's decision in G.R. No. 101837, the Assistant
The following day, July 31, 1991, the NBI filed a motion 10
Provincial Prosecutor issued a Resolution dated February
praying that it be granted full custody of petitioner pending
The case was raffled to the sala of respondent judge, the 27, 1992 finding probable cause to charge petitioner with
the investigation of the case involving illegal possession of
Hon. Benjamin V. Pelayo, who, on July 12, 1991, approved the crime of murder. The Resolution was approved by the
firearms.
the cash bond posted by petitioner and ordered his release. Provincial Prosecutor who filed with the trial court a
motion to cancel the bail of petitioner and a motion to set
An Order 11 was issued by the trial Court dated August 1, the criminal case for resumption of the trial on the merits.
On July 16, 1991, respondent judge issued an Order
1991 setting for hearing the issue concerning the proper
granting leave for the Provincial Prosecutor of Rizal to
venue of petitioner's detention.
conduct a preliminary investigation. Petitioner attempted to have the Resolution of the
Prosecutor reversed by appealing to the Department of
After the hearing on petitioner's custody, the trial court Justice, and filing petitions with the Court of Appeals (CA,
However, on July 17, 1991, respondent judge motu proprio
issued an Order 12 dated August 2, 1991 ordering the G.R. SP No. 27738) and finally to this Court (G.R. No.
issued an Order 2 which: (a) recalled the July 12, 1991
CAPCOM to bring the person of petitioner to the court not 105424), but his efforts did not meet with success.
Order granting bail; (b) directed petitioner to surrender
later than August 5, 1991 so that a commitment order for
within 48 hours from notice; (c) cancelled the July 16, 1991
his detention at the Rizal Provincial Jail could be issued.
Order granting leave for the Provincial Prosecutor to On October 1, 1991, petitioner filed another petition for
The Commitment Order 13 ordering the Provincial Warden
conduct a preliminary investigation; (d) treated petitioner's certiorari, prohibition and mandamus before this Court
seeking to annul: (1) the Order of the trial court dated and the rich.' To disqualify or not to disqualify himself which, among other things, denied the Motion. In the
September 4, 1991 denying petitioner's Motion for then, as far as respondent judge is concerned, is a matter Urgent Motion filed with this Court on December 16, 1992,
Recusation; and (2) the Order dated September 17, 1991 of conscience." 18 petitioner prayed "for the issuance forthwith and ex parte
denying petitioner's Motion to Suspend Proceedings and of a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction directing
Transfer Venue Outside Metro Manila. The petition, respondent judge to allow petitioner to complete his
The Court of Appeals also sustained the trial court's denial
docketed as G.R. No. 101772, was remanded to the Court defense evidence by presenting his last witness on the bail
of petitioner's Motion to Suspend Proceedings and Transfer
of Appeals. issue . . ." 24
Venue Outside Metro Manila with the following
pronouncement:
On March 9, 1992, the Court of Appeals (13th Division) On December 29, 1992, the Court passed a Resolution 25
rendered a decision dismissing the petition. As to the issuing a temporary restraining order (TRO) restraining
"On the question of the denial by the respondent court of
denial of petitioner's Motion for Recusation, the Court of respondent judge from resolving the bail issue and
petitioner's motion to suspend proceedings and transfer
Appeals held in part: directing him to allow petitioner to present his last
venue outside of Metro Manila, suffice it to say that the
witness. This Resolution was clarified and the TRO
respondent court was correct in denying petitioner's
confirmed in another Resolution issued by the Court on
"On the basis of the allegation of the petition, the Court is motion. For indeed, the authority to order a change of
January 11, 1993. 26
not inclined to strike down the denial of petitioner's motion venue or place of trial to avoid a miscarriage of justice is
for recusation as a grave abuse of discretion on the part of vested in the Supreme Court by Article VIII, Section 5,
the respondent judge absent any clear showing of such paragraph 4 of the Constitution. Neither the respondent On January 8, 1993, the OSG filed a Comment on
grave abuse of his discretion. The allegation of petitioner court nor this Court has the authority to grant petitioner's petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration.
in support of his motion for recusation are conclusions motion for transfer of venue. The cases cited by petitioner
based on his own fears and are therefore speculations than in support of this issue were all decided by the Supreme
At the outset, it is noteworthy to observe that petitioner in
anything else. Court before the advent of the 1973 Constitution where the
this Motion for Reconsideration no longer raises the
provision on transfer of venue was first adopted, hence not
question of change of venue. Moreover, the Motion for
applicable to the instant case." 19
In order to warrant a finding of 'prejudicial' publicity as Reconsideration is predicated on what petitioner alleges
urged by the petitioner, there must be allegation and proof are "the supervening events demonstrating partiality to the
that the judge has been unduly influenced, not simply that Petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration of the CA decision prosecution, on one hand, and hostility against petitioner,
he might be, by the "barrage" of publicity (Martelino vs. having been denied, 20 a petition under Rule 45 was filed on the other." 27 Perforce, this Resolution shall only
Alejandro, 32 SCRA 106; emphasis supplied). While there is before this Court on July 29, 1992 assailing the decision of consider the allegations and issues raised in this Motion for
such allegation in the petition, the Court has however the Court of Appeals. On September 9, 1992, the Office of Reconsideration and in the Comment thereon filed by the
found no proof so far adduced sufficient to accept the the Solicitor General (OSG), representing respondent OSG.
petitioner's claim that the respondent judge has been People of the Philippines, filed a Comment on the Petition.
unduly influenced by the alleged publicity.
Petitioner's Motion for Recusation filed before the trial
On September 23, 1992, the Court, after considering the court is based on Rule 137, sec. 1, par. 2 of the Rules of
Additionally, We quote hereunder the pronouncement of allegations contained, issues raised and the arguments Court on disqualification of judges.
the Supreme Court in the case of Aparicio vs. Andal, 175 adduced in the Petition, as well as the Comment filed by
SCRA 569 where, citing the case of Pimentel vs. Salanga, 21 the OSG, issued a Resolution denying the Petition on the
The Constitution commands that in all criminal
SCRA 160, it said: ground that the respondent Court of Appeals committed no
prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to have "a
reversible error in its assailed decision.
speedy, impartial, and public trial." 28 (Emphasis supplied)
Efforts to attain fair, just and impartial trial and decision, This right is a derivation and elaboration of the more
have a natural and alluring appeal. But, we are not On October 12, 1992, the present Motion for fundamental right to due process of law. 29 The rule on the
licensed to indulge in unjustified assumptions, or make a Reconsideration 21 was filed in which petitioner reiterates disqualification of judges is a mechanism for enforcing the
speculative approval to this ideal. It ill behooves this Court his position that respondent judge should inhibit himself requirements of due process. "It is now beyond dispute that
to tar and feather a judge as biased or prejudiced, simply from the case. due process cannot be satisfied in the absence of that
because counsel for a party litigant happens to complain degree of objectivity on the part of a judge sufficient to
against him. As applied here, respondent judge has not as reassure litigants of his being fair and being just. Thereby
On December 16, 1992, petitioner filed a pleading
yet crossed the line that divides partiality and impartiality. there is the legitimate expectation that the decision
captioned "Urgent Motion (for preliminary mandatory
He has not thus far stepped to one side of the fulcrum. No arrived at would be the application of the law to the facts
injunction)." In said Motion, petitioner questioned the
act or conduct of his would show arbitrariness or prejudice. as found by a judge who does not play favorites." 30
Order of the trial court dated December 9, 1992 denying
Therefore, we are not to assume what respondent judge,
petitioner's Motion to Reopen Hearing (of the cancellation
not otherwise legally disqualified, will do in a case before
of bail proceedings) and to Present Last Witness. It appears The "cold neutrality of an impartial judge," 31 although
him. We have had occasion to rule in a criminal case that a
that after the presentation of eleven (11) witnesses by the required primarily for the benefit of the litigants, is also
charge made before trial that a party 'will not be given a
prosecution and six (6) by the defense, the trial court designed to preserve the integrity of the judiciary and
fair, impartial and just hearing' is 'premature.' Prejudice is
considered the question concerning the cancellation of more fundamentally, to gain and maintain the people's
not to be presumed. Especially if weighed against a judge's
petitioner's bail ripe for resolution. Thereafter, petitioner faith in the institutions they have erected when they
legal obligation under his oath to administer justice
filed a Motion to Reopen and Present Last Witness. 22 But adopted our Constitution. The notion that "justice must
without respect to person and to equal right to the poor
the trial court issued an Order 23 dated December 9, 1992 satisfy the appearance of justice" 32 is an imposition by the
citizenry, as the final judge of the conduct of public procedure prescribed in Rule 137, sec. 2 when the trial "Pursuing his unconstitutional bent first evinced when,
business, including trials, upon the courts of a high and judge denied a party's motion for inhibition under Rule 137, without benefit of preliminary investigation, petitioner's
uncompromising standard in the proper dispensation of sec. 1, par. 2, thus: arraignment and trial, then arrest and detention for almost
justice. a year was peremptorily ordered which this Court
reversed and rebuked (G.R. no. 101837, promulgated 11
"Moreover, the trial judge acted correctly in proceeding
February 1992) the unchastened trial judge let out yet
While bias and prejudice, which are relied upon by with the case by setting it for pre-trial since it is within her
with two palpably biased and hostile orders, infra, clearly
petitioner, have been recognized as valid reasons for the sound discretion, after her decision in favor of her own
and unmistakably demonstrating an unconstitutional
voluntary inhibition 33 of the judge under Rule 137, sec. 1, competency, to either proceed with the trial or refrain
prejudgment of petitioner's culpability." 46
par. 2, 34 the established rule is that mere suspicion that a from acting on the case until determination of the issue of
judge is partial is not enough. There should be clear and her disqualification by the appellate court [Section 2 of
convincing evidence to prove the charge. 35 Bare Rule 137 of the Revised Rules of Court; De la Paz v. The first of these allegedly "palpably biased and hostile
allegations of partiality and prejudgment will not suffice. Intermediate Appellate Court, supra, at 76]. 43 orders" was that issued by respondent judge on August 14,
36 Bias and prejudice cannot be presumed especially if 1992 overruling petitioner's objection to the admissibility of
weighed against a judge's sacred obligation under his oath an affidavit of Geronimo Gonzaga offered by the
Hence, if the trial judge decides to deny a motion for
of office to administer justice without respect to person prosecution. Petitioner contends that respondent judge
inhibition based on Rule 137, sec. 1, par. 2, he shall
and do equal right to the poor and the rich. 37 should not have admitted the extrajudicial statements of
proceed with the trial, unless of course restrained by either
Gonzaga because the latter did not take the witness stand
the Court of Appeals or by this Court. The mere filing of a
to affirm the statements contained in the document
In the Motion for Reconsideration now before the Court, motion for inhibition before the trial court or a petition
presented by the prosecution. Petitioner suspected that
petitioner, to prove his allegation of bias on the part of before either the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court
respondent judge was trying to bolster the evidence for the
respondent judge, takes the latter to task for continuing challenging an order of the trial judge denying a motion for
prosecution.
with the trial during the pendency of this petition stating inhibition will not deprive the judge of authority to
that: proceed with the case. Otherwise, by the expedient of
filing such motion or petition, although the same be lacking This contention is without merit. The mere fact that the
in merit, a party can unduly delay the trial. trial judge overruled petitioner's objection to the
"Even as the instant petition for the trial judge's recusation
admissibility of a particular piece of evidence is not proof
pends, the latter did not see fit to suspend the hearings.
of bias. In Jandionco v. Pearanda, 47 it was held that
Indeed the trial judge has been conducting marathon In the case at hand, respondent judge acted in accordance
"[d]ivergence of opinions between a judge hearing a case
hearings which, in the context of his questioned fairness with the Rules and prevailing jurisprudence when he
and a party's counsel, as to applicable laws and
and impartiality, roars out as a railroad rush to make proceeded with the trial after denying petitioner's Motion
jurisprudence, is not a sufficient ground to disqualify the
official a pre-determined verdict of guilt." 38 for Recusation. Petitioner cannot, therefore, cite the fact
judge from hearing the case on the ground of bias and
that respondent judge did not suspend hearing the case
manifest partiality." 48 If petitioner disagrees with the
during the pendency of this petition as proof of his claim
The Court draws the attention of petitioner and his judge's ruling, he may still question the admissibility of the
that the judge is partial. This Court has not, in connection
counsels 39 to the procedure to be followed by the judge evidence when he files an appeal, in case a judgment of
with the petition, issued a temporary restraining order
before whom a motion for disqualification has been filed. conviction is rendered. To conclude, however, that
(TRO) enjoining respondent judge from further hearing the
Rule 137, sec. 2 provides: respondent judge, by overruling the objection raised by
case. The TRO which this Court issued on December 29,
petitioner's counsel, was trying to strengthen the
1992 after the petition was denied and pending this Motion
prosecution's evidence is not only baseless because there
"If it be claimed that an official is disqualified from sitting for Reconsideration ordered the judge to desist from
was no evidence given to support this conclusion, but also
as above provided, the party objecting to his competency resolving the question on the cancellation of bail until the
premature because at that stage, the judge was not yet
may, in writing, file with the official his objection, stating last witness of petitioner was heard. The TRO did not
appreciating the merits and weight of the particular piece
the grounds therefor, and the official shall thereupon restrain the judge from hearing the case. On the contrary,
of evidence in question but was merely ruling on its
proceed with the trial, or withdraw therefrom, in the judge was ordered to hear petitioner's last witness in
admissibility. Petitioner's conclusion that "the offer and
accordance with his determination of the question of his the cancellation of bail proceedings. 44 Because it was his
admission of Gonzaga's hearsay 'eyewitness' statement
disqualification . . ." (Emphasis supplied) duty to continue trying the case and there was no order
suggest a sinister concert to simulate evidential strength"
from this Court not to do so, respondent judge committed
49 is, if not suggestive of paranoia, at the very least, an
no impropriety evincing partiality when he continued
In People v. Moreno, 40 we stated that if a judge denies overreaction.
hearing the case during the pendency of the petition before
the motion for disqualification and rules favorably on his
this Court.
competency to try the case, it becomes a matter of official
The other supervening event allegedly demonstrating the
duty for him to proceed with the trial and decision of the
judge's partiality occurred during one of the hearings
case. He cannot shirk the responsibility without the risk of Petitioner, in this Motion for Reconsideration, claims that
concerning the prosecution's motion for the cancellation of
being called upon to account for his dereliction. Although since the issuance of the Court Resolution dated September
petitioner's bail. On September 28, 1992, after eleven (11)
this case was decided prior to the introduction of par. 2 of 23, 1992 denying his Petition, there have been "supervening
witnesses had been presented for the prosecution and two
Rule 137, sec. 1, there is no reason why the procedure laid events demonstrating partiality to the prosecution on one
(2) for the defense, respondent judge considered the
down in Rule 137, sec. 2 and applied in People v. Moreno hand, and hostility against petitioner, on the other hand."
cancellation of bail proceedings ripe for resolution and
should not likewise apply to a motion for inhibition filed 45 Petitioner alleges:
refused to allow petitioner's counsel to present anymore
pursuant to Rule 137, sec. 1, par. 2. 41 In fact, in
witnesses. The reasons given by respondent judge for his
Genoblazo v. Court of Appeals, 42 the Court applied the
ruling were: (1) the proceeding in the cancellation of bail is a full exercise of judicial discretion." 54 If the trial judge In the case at hand, the Motion for Recusation filed by
summary and different from the hearing on the merits; (2) believes that the evidence before him is sufficient for him petitioner must be viewed in the light of his lawyers' many
the court need not receive exactly the same number of to rule on the bail issue, after giving both parties their attempts to suspend the proceedings before the respondent
witnesses from both the prosecution and the defense; and opportunity to present evidence, it is within his authority judge. Before the trial court, petitioner tried at least eight
(3) the counsel for petitioner previously limited himself to to consider the bail proceedings ripe for resolution. In any (8) times, not merely to reset the scheduled hearings, 61
two (2) witnesses as borne out by the record of the case. case, respondent judge acceded to petitioner's request and but to suspend the trial of the case itself. The following
50 allowed him to present more witnesses in the bail pleadings filed by petitioner before respondent judge all
proceedings. prayed either to suspend the proceedings entirely or for
the respondent judge to delay the disposition of a
Respondent judge is correct in appreciating the nature of
particular issue:
the bail proceedings. "[T]he hearing of an application for In fine, the Court holds that the respondent judge's ruling
bail should be summary or otherwise in the discretion of on September 28, 1992 considering the prosecution's
the court. By 'summary hearing' [is] meant such brief and motion for cancellation of bail ripe for resolution on the CAPTION OF PLEADING DATE OF FILING
speedy method of receiving and considering the evidence basis of the evidence already presented was not motivated
of guilt as is practicable and consistent with the purpose of by bias or prejudice.
1. Urgent Ex-Parte Motion July 19, 1991
the hearing which is merely to determine the weight of the
evidence for the purpose of bail. In such a hearing, the
Finally, petitioner, in this Motion for Reconsideration,
court 'does not sit to try the merits or to enter into any 2. Motion to Hold in Abeyance August 2, 1991
restates his argument in the Petition that the respondent
nice inquiry as to the weight that ought to be allowed to
judge is biased, as evidenced by his Order dated July 17,
the evidence for or against accused, nor will it speculate
1991 55 which in effect allowed petitioner's arraignment 3. Motion for Recusation August 8, 1991
on the outcome of the trial or on what further evidence
and trial without the benefit of a preliminary investigation.
may be therein offered is admitted.' . . . The course of the
inquiry may be left to the discretion of the court which 4. Motion to Suspend Proceedings
may confine itself to receiving such evidence as has It is true that in Go v. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No.
reference to substantial matters avoiding unnecessary 101837, February 11, 1992, a divided Court nullified
and Transfer Venue Outside
thoroughness in the examination and cross-examination of respondent judge's July 17, 1991 Order and ordered that a
witnesses and reducing to a reasonable minimum the preliminary investigation be conducted. But the erroneous
amount of corroboration particularly on details that are not Order of respondent judge is not necessarily proof of Metro Manila August 22, 1991
essential to the purpose of the hearing." 51 partiality. In People v. Lacson, 56 we held that erroneous
rulings do not always constitute evidence of bias. 57 In
5. Motion to Suspend Proceedings March 4, 1991
Luciano v. Mariano, 58 we made the pronouncement that
Although the proceedings conducted by respondent judge
"[t]he mere fact that the judge has erroneously ruled
were not for an application for bail but to cancel that
against the same litigant on two or more occasions does not 6. Second Motion to Inhibit March 2, 1992
which was issued to petitioner, the principles and
create in our minds a decisive pattern of malice on the part
procedure governing hearings on an application for bail
of the judge against that particular litigant. This is not an
were correctly applied by respondent judge in the 7. Motion to Suspend Action on
unusual occurrence in our courts . . ." Moreover, the fact
cancellation of bail proceedings since the bail was issued
that the erroneous order issued by a judge can be remedied
by this Court in G.R. No. 101837 without prejudice to any
and was actually corrected, as in this case, militates Formal Offer of Evidence and on
lawful order which the trial court may issue in case the
against the disqualification of the judge on the ground of
Provincial Prosecutor moves for the cancellation of the
bias or partiality. 59
bail. 52 The grant of bail was made without prejudice Submission of Memorandum Dec. 21, 1992
because where bail is not a matter of right, as in this case,
the prosecution must be given the opportunity to prove We have earlier underscored the importance of the rule of
that there is a strong evidence of guilt. 53 In the disqualification of judges, not only in safeguarding the 8. Motion to Reopen Hearing and
cancellation of bail proceedings before him, the judge was rights of litigants to due process of law but also in earning
confronted with the same issue as in an application for for the judiciary the people's confidence, an element so Present Last Witness Dec. 1, 1992
bail, i.e., whether the evidence of guilt is so strong as to essential in the effective administration of justice. The rule
convince the court that the accused is not entitled to bail. should, therefore, not be used cavalierly to suit a litigant's
Hence, the similarity of the nature and procedure of the personal designs or to defeat the ends of justice. "While We Before this Court, petitioner has already filed three (3)
hearings for an application for bail and the cancellation of are exacting on the conduct of judges confronted with petitions assailing various orders of respondent judge in
the same. motions for disqualification's, We cannot, however, connection with the single murder case pending against
tolerate acts of litigants who, for any conceivable reason, him. Apart from the present petition which is docketed as
seek to disqualify a judge for their own purpose, under a G.R. No. 106087, petitioner has previously filed two (2)
Having determined that respondent judge made a proper other petitions docketed as G.R. Nos. 101837 and 105424.
plea of bias, hostility, prejudice or prejudgment . . . [T]his
appreciation of the nature of the bail proceedings before In all three (3) petitions, petitioner applied for a temporary
Court does not approve the tactic of some litigants of filing
him, we likewise hold that it was within his discretion to restraining order to have the proceedings before the trial
of baseless motion for disqualification of the judge as a
limit the number of witnesses for petitioner. The power of court held in abeyance.
means of delaying the case and/or of forum-shopping for a
the court in the bail proceedings to make a determination
more friendly judge." 60
as to whether or not the evidence of guilt is strong "implies
The murder case involving only one accused, the judgment on a man's liberty only after a full trial of the Footnotes
petitioner, has become unnecessarily complicated and the facts." 65
proceedings before the trial court protracted, as can be
1. Penned by Justice Arturo B. Buena with the concurrence
gleaned from the fact that between the filing of the
The Rules of Court commands members of the bar "[t]o of Justices Minerva P. Gonzaga-Reyes and Quirino D. Abad
information on July 11, 1991 and the end of last year or
observe and maintain the respect due to the courts of Santos Jr.
December 31, 1992, the records of the case now consist of
justice and judicial officers." 66 Reinforcing this rule of
four (4) volumes and the transcript of stenographic notes
conduct is the Code of Professional Responsibility which
have reached a total of one thousand five hundred and 2. Records, Vol. 1, p. 36.
states in Canon 11 the following: "A lawyer shall observe
twenty three (1523) pages. Hearings are still being
and maintain the respect due to the courts and to judicial
conducted.
officers and should insist on similar conduct by others." 3. Records, Vol. 1, pp. 103-104.
Rule 11.03 of the Code further states: "A lawyer shall
When taken in the light of petitioner's repeated attempts abstain from scandalous, offensive or menacing language or
4. Records, Vol. 1, p. 105.
to have the proceedings in the murder case suspended and behaviour before the courts." The next succeeding rule,
his lawyers' transparent maneuvers for the needless Rule 11.03 adds: "A lawyer shall not attribute to a judge
protraction of the case, the Motion for Recusation can only motives not supported by the record or having materiality 5. Records, Vol. 1, pp. 113-114.
be viewed as another dilatory move and the present Motion to the case."
for Reconsideration a further ploy to stall hearings.
6. Records, Vol. 1, p. 117.
To be sure, the adversarial nature of our legal system has
In sum, after a careful examination of the records of the tempted members of the bar, in pursuing their duty to
7. Records, Vol. 1, p. 118.
case, including the transcript of stenographic notes, and advance the interests of their clients, to use strong
considering the applicable law, the pertinent rules and language. But this privilege is not a license to malign our
prevailing jurisprudence, we reiterate our holding in the courts of justice. Irreverent behavior towards the courts by 8. Records, Vol. 1, p. 1Z3.
Court Resolution dated September 23, 1992 that the Court members of the bar is proscribed, not so much for the sake
of Appeals committed no reversible error in affirming the of the temporary incumbent of the judicial office, but
9. Records, Vol. 1, pp. 125-128.
respondent judge's Order which denied petitioner's Motion more importantly, for the maintenance of respect for our
for Recusation. This extended Resolution should put an end judicial system, so necessary for the country's stability.
to petitioner's obvious attempts at deferring the trial of his "Time and again, this Court has admonished and punished, 10. Records, Vol. 1, pp. 136-137.
principal case by dwelling on incidental matters. The in varying degrees, members of the bar for statements,
motion for reconsideration must, perforce, be denied with disrespectful or irreverent, acrimonious or defamatory, of
finality. this Court or the lower courts . . . To be sure, lawyers may 11. Records, Vol. 1, p. 138.
come up with various methods, perhaps more effective, in
calling the Court's attention to the issues involved. The 12. Records, Vol. 1, p. 141.
In the Comment on the petitioner's Motion for Recusation,
language vehicle does not run short of expressions,
the Solicitor General prays that Attys. Raymundo A.
emphatic but respectful, convincing but not derogatory,
Armovit, Miguel R. Armovit and Rafael R. Armovit, be 13. Records, Vol. 1, p. 170.
illuminating but not offensive." 67
disciplinarily dealt with by this Court for allegedly using
abusive and intemperate language against respondent
judge which betrays disrespect to the trial court. In light of the above doctrines and jurisprudence, as well as 14. Records, Vol. 1, pp. 172-179.
the inherent power and authority of this Court to cite
members of the Bar in contempt and to discipline them, we 15. Records, Vol. 1, pp. 255-257.
Indeed, in the Motion for Reconsideration, counsels for
are of the opinion that the language used by petitioner's
petitioner describe as "unparalleled for sheer malevolence"
lawyers is highly derogatory, offensive and contemptuous.
62 respondent judge's allegedly erroneous assumptions. 16. Records, Vol. 1, p. 263.
Petitioner's lawyers further stated: "Petitioner's counsel,
citing the above proceedings, contested the trial judge's WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the motion for
baseless, nay despotic attempt to muzzle his right to be reconsideration is DENIED with FINALITY. Attys. Raymundo 17. Records, Vol. 1, pp. 211-212.
heard in his defense . . ." 63 The trial judge's actions were A. Armovit, Miguel R. Armovit and Rafael R. Armovit are
also branded as an "obviously unholy rush to do petitioner hereby ordered to pay a FINE of P500.00 each with a stern 18. CA Decision (CA - G.R. SP No. 26305, March 9, 1992),
in . . ." 64 WARNING that a repetition of this or similar act and pp. 7-8; Rollo, pp. 143-144.
language will be dealt with more severely. Let a copy of
this Resolution be attached to their records.
In the Urgent Motion filed by petitioner on December 16, 19. Id., p. 8; Rollo, p. 144.
1992, respondent judge is alleged to have: (1) "generated
belief of his being under contract to do the prosecution's SO ORDERED.
bidding;" (2) "evinced contempt for Supreme Court case 20. CA Resolution (CA - G.R. SP No. 26305, June 26, 1992);
law;" and (3) "dishonored his judicial oath and duty to hear Rollo, pp. 147-148.
Feliciano, Bidin, Davide, Jr. and Melo, JJ ., concur.
before he condemns, proceed upon inquiry, and render
21. The pleading is captioned "Supplemental Petition denying petitioner's Motion to Suspend Proceedings and to 35. Beltran v. Garcia, G.R. No. L-30868, September 30,
and/or Motion for Reconsideration (re the trial judge's Transfer Venue Outside Metro Manila; and (2) petitioner 1971, 41 SCRA 158; Aparicio v. Andal, G.R. Nos. 86587-93,
inhibition)." failed to show that his last witness could not have been July 25, 1989, 175 SCRA 569.
presented before the trial court considered the
cancellation for bail proceedings submitted for resolution.
22. Rollo, pp. 227-231. 36. Genoblazo v. Court of Appeals, infra, note 52.

26. Infra, note 44.


23. The full text of the Order is as follows: 37. Pimentel v. Salanga, G.R. No. L-27934, September 18,
1967, 21 SCRA 161.
27. Supplemental Petition and/or Motion for
"ORDER
Reconsideration (re the trial judge's inhibition), p. 3; Rollo,
38. Supplemental Petition and/or Motion for
p. 200.
Reconsideration (re the trial judge's inhibition), p. 2; Rollo,
After hearing the arguments of the defense and that of the
p. 199.
prosecution and after taking into consideration, as pointed
28. Constitution, Art. III, Sec. 14 (2).
out earlier by the Court that it has already heard enough
from the evidence submitted by prosecution and defense, 39. The Motion for Recusation was filed by the Law Firm of
the Court feels that the motion for cancellation of bail is 29. Constitution, Art. III, sections 1 and 14 (1). Atty. Raymundo A. Armovit composed of Attys. Raymundo
ripe for resolution, and in view thereof, the instant motion A. Armovit, Miguel R. Armovit and Rafael R. Armovit, on
to reopen proceedings is hereby DENIED. behalf of petitioner. On October 3, 1991, the Law Firm of
Art. III, sec. 1 provides:
Atty. Raymundo A. Armovit withdrew its appearance before
the trial court as counsel for petitioner. Atty. Carlos Z.
As far as the motion of prosecution to consider the incident
"Section 1. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or Ambrosio took over for a while but in May 27, 1992, Atty.
on the cancellation of bail submitted for resolution on the
property without due process of law, nor shall any person Prospero A. Cresini substituted Atty. Ambrosio. In this
basis of the evidence thus far presented by the prosecution
be denied the equal protection of the laws." present Motion for Reconsideration, petitioner is
and defense, and to consider the defense to have waived
represented by the Law Firm of Atty. Raymundo A. Armovit
its right to file its formal offer of evidence, in the interest
again.
of substantial justice and for humanitarian reason, the said Art. III, sec. 14 (1) provides:
motion is DENIED and defense is given up to Monday within
which to file its formal offer of evidence, copy furnished 40. People v. Moreno, 83 Phil. 286 (1949).
"Section 14. (1) No person shall be held to answer for a
the counsel for the prosecution, who upon receipt is given
criminal offense without due process of law."
two days within which to file its comment/opposition
41. The Court in an obiter dictum in Geotina v. Gonzales,
thereto, with or without which, the incident on the formal
G.R. No. L-26310, September 30, 1971, 41 SCRA 66, stated
offer of evidence shall be deemed submitted for resolution. 30. Mateo, Jr. v. Villaluz, G.R. No. L-34756-59, March 31,
that Rule 137, sec. 2 applies to par. 2 of Rule 137, sec. 1.
1973, 50 SCRA 18, 23.
The parties are given five (5) days from receipt of the
42. G.R. No. 79303, June 20, 1989, 124 SCRA 124.
Court's ruling on the formal offer of evidence by defense 31. "It has been said, in fact, that due process of law
within which to file their simultaneous memoranda, with or requires a hearing before an impartial and disinterested
without which, the incident on the cancellation of bail shall tribunal, and that every litigant is entitled to nothing less 43. Id., at 134-135.
be deemed submitted for resolution. than the cold neutrality of an impartial judge." (Gutierrez
v. Santos, G.R. No. L-15824, May 30, 1961, 2 SCRA 249,
44. On January 11, 1993, the Court issued a Resolution
254).
SO ORDERED." confirming and clarifying the TRO issued on December 29,
1992, thus:
32. Offutt v. United States, 99 L Ed 11, 16 (1954).
24. Petitioner's Urgent Motion (for preliminary mandatory
injunction), p. 1; Rollo, p. 220. "Acting on the urgent motion for the issuance of a
33. The terms inhibition and disqualification are used preliminary mandatory injunction filed by counsel for
interchangeably in this Resolution. See Del Castillo v. petitioner, this Court, in issuing the temporary restraining
25. Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr. was on leave while the
Javelona, supra, note 40, for the view that there is no need order directed the trial court to allow petitioner to present
ponente dissented. During the deliberations on petitioner's
to make a fine distinction between inhibition and his last witness provided that he shall be heard in only one
Urgent Motion (for preliminary mandatory injunction), the
disqualification because they may mean the same thing and hearing, after which the incident shall be deemed
ponente expressed the following reasons for her dissent to
bring about the same result. submitted for resolution. The trial court shall immediately
the Resolution: (1) the trial court's Order of December 16,
rule thereon without waiting for further instruction from
1992 denying petitioner's Motion to Reopen and Present
this Court.
Last Witness is not the subject of the present petition and 34. People v. Tuazon, G.R. No. 74799, March 28, 1988, 159
cannot be dealt with here; the instant petition concerns SCRA 315; People v. Serrano, G.R. No. 44712, October 28,
the Court of Appeals decision upholding the trial court's 1991, 203 SCRA 171. The Court hereby CONFIRMS the temporary restraining
Order dated September 4, 1991 denying petitioner's Motion order issued on December 29, 1992."
for Recusation and Order dated September 17, 1991
45. Supra, note 27. 62. Rollo, p. 200.

46. Supplemental Petition and/or Motion for 63. Rollo, p. 201.


Reconsideration (re the trial judge's inhibition), p. 2; Rollo,
p. 199.
64. Rollo, p. 207.

47. G.R. No. 79284, November 27, 1987, 155 SCRA 725.
65. Rollo, p. 221.

48. Id, at 731.


66. Rule 138, sec. 20(b).

49. Supplemental Petition and/or Motion for


67. Rheem of the Philippines v. Ferrer, G.R. No. L-22979,
Reconsideration (re the trial judge's inhibition), p. 3; Rollo,
June 26, 1967, 20 SCRA 441, 445 citing Perkins v. Perkins,
p. 200.
57 Phil. 223, 226; Salcedo v. Hernandez, 61 Phil. 724;
Medina v. Rivera, 66 Phil. 151, 157; In re Franco, 67 Phil.
50. TSN, September 28, 1992, pp. 3-4. 312, 316; People v. Carillo, 77 Phil. 572, 579-580, 583; In
re Sotto, 82 Phil. 595, 601-602; People v. Venturanza, 98
Phil. 211, 217; De Joya v. Court of First Instance of Rizal,
51. Ocampo v. Bernabe, 77 Phil. 55, 62 (1946).
99 Phil. 907, 915-916; Sison v. Sandejas, L-9270, April 29,
1959; Paragas v. Cruz (Resolution), L-24433, July 30, 1965.
52. Go v. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 101837,
February 11, 1992, 206 SCRA 138, 162.

53. People v. Calo, Jr., G.R. No. 88531, June 18, 1990, 186
SCRA 620.

54. Herras Teehankee v. Director of Prisons, 76 Phil. 756,


770 (1946).

55. Supra, note 2.

56. G.R. No. L-8188, February 13, 1961, 1 SCRA 414.

57. Cf., Heirs of Julio Rosas v. Reyes, G.R. No. 91406, July
31, 1990, 188 SCRA 236.

58. Adm. Case No. 181-J, March 31, 1971, 38 SCRA 176,
183-184.

59. Rosello v. Court of Appeals, G.R. Nos. L-46274, L-


46549, December 14, 1988, 168 SCRA 459.

60. People v. Serrano, G.R. No. L-44712, October 28, 1991,


203 SCRA 171, 186-187.

61. As of the writing of this Resolution, petitioner has filed


five (5) written motions to reset hearings dated September
26, 1991, May 13, 1992, June 11, 1992, January 7, 1992 and
February 16, 1993. These do not include petitioners' oral
motions for postponement.