PADERANGA v.

AZURA
136 SCRA 266, G.R. No. L-69640-45
MELENCIO-HERRERA, J.:
Augustus Botrous DV. Guco

FACTS: Petitioner (Mayor of Gingoog City) in this petition for certiorari, prays for the
annulment of the respondent Judge’s denial of the Motion for Prohibition that he filed and that
the same respondent be inhibited from deciding on pending cases brought before them due to
their loss of confidence in the respondent’s competence and impartiality, such as in one instance
where after having entertained a suit assailing the validity of auction sales of tax delinquent
properties, respondent issued restraining orders to the City Treasurer to prevent the sales from
proceeding whereas it is alleged that the actual remedy for the situation would have been to pay
for their taxes. He also argues that both the Order denying the Motion as well as his arrest was
unwarranted, issued unjustly and whimsically – and that the Order was done with grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack of or excess in jurisdiction.
Respondent denied the motion, claiming the above loss as unproven, with the
motion only filed for by the petitioner due to an attempt to save their own skin from both the
haughty conduct and outlandish arguments made by petitioner’s counsel, acts which portrayed a
contemptuous attitude towards the Court itself.
ISSUE: WON respondent should be inhibited from hearing and deciding cases where
petitioner is involved
RULING: The Court rules in the affirmative. The respondent Judge’s capacity to try and
decide fairly and judiciously was found wanting, with previous hostility between both sides only
further magnifying suspicions regarding the respondent’s impartiality, and integrity on this
occasion.
Petition for certiorari granted. Respondent is to be enjoined from hearing and deciding on cases
involving the City of Gingoog or the officials therein, i.e. petitioner.