DISQUALIFICATION OF JUSTICES AND JUDGESRULE 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. The Rules contemplate two kinds of disqualification: compulsory and voluntary. Under the first paragraph of the cited Rule, it is conclusively presumed that judges cannot actively and impartially sit in the instances mentioned. The 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. COMPULSORY DISQUALIFICATION Section 1 (1), Rule 137, ROC No judge or judicial officer shall sit in any case in which: (a) He, or his wife or child, is pecuniarily interested as heir, legatee, creditor or otherwise; or (b) 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 (c) He has been executor, administrator, guardian, trustee or counsel; or (d) 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. Javier v. Commission on Elections (1996) The relationship of the judge with one of the parties may color the facts and distort the law to the prejudice of a just decision. Where this is probable or even only possible, due process demands that the judge inhibit himself, if only out of a sense of delicadeza. Hacienda Benito, Inc. v. Court of Appeals (1987) The rationale behind Sec. 1, Rule 137 on disqualification of judges is to preserve public faith in the judiciary’s fairness and objectivity to ally suspicions and distrust as to a possible bias and prejudice in favor or a party coming into play. VOLUNTARY DISQUALIFICATION Section 1 (2), Rule 137, ROC 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. Grounds: For just and valid reasons. But in the inhibition order, the judge should state what reason. Voluntary inhibition is strictly a matter of conscience. Not Valid Grounds: Counsel for the party filed an administrative case against the judge. Mere filing is not a He should exercise his discretion in . which this Court later reversed in G. No. Although there are instances where one order is enough. but when circumstances appear that will induce doubt as to his honest actuations and probity in favor of either party. Barnes v. to conclude that the judge was biased and partial against petitioner. Banco Filipino (2004) Mere suspicion of partiality is not enough. but in the usual case. People. This case the judge won’t inhibit. petitioner. for we all err. Clearly. then it would be opening the floodgates to a form of forumshopping. in which litigants would be allowed to shop for a judge more sympathetic to their causes. has not shown that Judge Quijano Padilla had been biased and partial against a particular party in the proceedings in Civil Case No. So in effect. On the part on lawyers. Reyes (2003) In the case at bar. The courts will close shop if we disqualify judges who err. except where the orders taken not singly. speed and adequate remedy Ty v. There should be hard evidence to prove it. but collectively show that the judge has lost the cold neutrality of an impartial magistrate. the remedy of erroneous interlocutory rulings in the course of a trial is not the outright disqualification of a judge. Finally. is not enough reason. Cannot presume the judge to be vindictive without evidence. The fact that Judge QuijanoPadilla ruled adversely against petitioner in the resolution of the motion to dismiss. There is a criminal case. Her voluntary inhibition was only on account of dispelling any doubt and perception of bias on the part of petitioner.R. Q9937219. So it is difficult to prove partiality. for there is yet to come a judge with the omniscience to issue rulings that are always infallible. Instances of gross abuse of discretion. or incite such state of mind. it says. EXCEPTION: a. he should conduct a careful examination. As this Court has emphasized in Webb v. ground. Borromeo (1987) A judge may not be legally prohibited from sitting in a litigation. GENERAL RULE: Voluntary inhibition cannot be compelled by mandamus because it is discretionary. the orders are the decisions or whatever writs coming from the court. absent any extrinsic evidence of malice or bad faith. BorromeoHerrera v. manifest injustice and palpable excess of authority equivalent to denial of a settled right to which petitioner is entitled b. Mere friendship. no just and valid reason supports the inhibition of Judge QuijanoPadilla. Disadvantages on the rule on inhibition: Can be used by a judge to extricate himself from a case. as well as manifest showing of bias and partiality. The judge even acknowledged in the inhibitory order that the motion for her disqualification contained no statement of specific act or acts that would show her partiality or bias in the treatment of the case. 160753. Issuance of erroneous orders and decisions that pertain to the judge’s judicial functions may not be proper consideration to charge a judge of bias. must show that the judge has lost the cold neutrality of an impartial judge. aside from his bare allegations. therefore. No other plain. may use to choose a judge. the Court notes that if it were to affirm the inhibitory order in this case. This case is different because the judge did not inhibit. taken collectively. It is not unnatural for judges to have friends. it is difficult to find suspicion of partiality in just one issuance alone. or a member of his or her family. the judge should be disqualified in order to guaranty a fair trial. A salutary norm is that he reflects on the probability that a losing party might nurture at the back of his mind the thought that the judge had unmeritoriously tilted scales of justice against him. or the judge or lawyer was material witness therein. Section 5. b.. Judges shall. The judge has actual bias or prejudice concerning a party or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning proceedings. but are not limited to.. or a former associate of the judge served as counsel during their association. Judges shall disqualify themselves from participating in any proceedings in which they are unable to decide the matter impartially or in which it may appear to a reasonable observer that they are unable to decide the matter impartially. extreme delicacy. bias and partiality is evident. Section 3.a way that people’s faith in the Courts of Justice is not impaired. so conduct themselves as to minimize the occasions on which it will be necessary for them to be disqualified from hearing cases. But if the relationship between the judge and an attorney for a party is such that there would be a natural inclination to prejudice the case. Villaluz (1973) The Court traced the history of the second paragraph of the abovequoted provision. f. That one of the counsels in a case was a classmate of the trial judge is not a legal ground for the disqualification of the said judge. If those concerned were not disqualified. Pimintel vs Salonga (1967) A judge may not be legally prohibited from sitting in a litigation. Disqualification is also called inhibition or to recuse. But when suggestion is made of record that he might be induced to act in favor of one party or with bias or prejudice against litigant arising out of circumstance reasonably capable of inciting such a state of mind. d. To allow it would unnecessarily burden other trial judges to whom the case would be transferred. The judge previously served as a lawyer or was a material witness in the matter in controversy. which had been added only as an amendment to the Rules of Court in 1964. however. or . They could not voluntarily inhibit themselves on grounds of prejudice or bias. The judge served as executor. then there would be no ground for judge to inhibit. The judge. The better course for the judge under such circumstances is to disqualify himself. he should conduct a careful examination. instances where: a. so far as is reasonable. administrator guardian. Prior to that year. it was their official duty to proceed with the case or else risk being called upon to account for their dereliction. Umale v. or even if they themselves took great interest and an active part in the filing of the case. The judge is related by consanguinity of affinity to a party litigant within the sixth civil degree or to counsel within the fourth degree. has an economic interest in the outcome of the matter in controversy. e. c. He should exercise his discretion in a way that the people’s faith in the court of justice is not impaired. Where allegation of partiality has not been reasonably established. then the judge must inhibit from the case. Such proceedings include. trustee or lawyer in the case or matter in controversy. Where. the question on whether to take cognizance of the case did not depend upon the discretion of the judges not legally disqualified to sit in a given case. The judge’s ruling in a lower court is the subject of review. Query of Executive Judge Estrada (1987) Intimacy or friendship between a judge and an attorney of record of one of the parties to a suit is no ground for disqualification. as heir. Canon 3. NCJC). 2004 A municipal judge who filed complaints in his own court for robbery and malicious mischief against a party for the purpose of protecting the property interests of the judge’s coheirs. Canon 3. NCJC).M. in the subject matter in controversy or in a party to the proceeding. No.g. L40603. fiduciary. 5(a). July 13. has an economic interest in the outcome of the matter in controversy (Sec. 1. administrator. Canon 3. NCJC). 106657. Canon 3. 3. No. on the ground that the decision was not written by him. or a former associate of the judge served as counsel during their association. trustee or lawyer in the case or matter in controversy. rightly or wrongly. The judge is related by consanguinity or affinity to a party litigant within the 6 th degree or to counsel within the 4 civil degree (Sec. 1978 th civil . NCJC). Velasco A. or Hurtado v. No. the knowledge must be obtained extra judicially like outofcourt observations. NCJC). The judge knows that his or her spouse or child has a financial interest. Note: The restriction extends to judges who served as lawyers in closely related cases. Sandoval v. The judge previously served as a lawyer or was a material witness in the matter in controversy (Sec. 4. Canon 3. Aug. to be susceptible to bias and prejudice. CA. 5(c). The judge has actual bias or prejudice concerning a party or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceedings (Sec. or a member of his or her family.R. or otherwise. NCJC). guardian. The Supreme Court upheld his refusal. Note: The rule also requires disqualification if a judge has outside knowledge of disputed facts. or any other interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceedings Q: What does the phrase “any proceedings” include? A: Such proceedings include. 5. Oktubre v. Note: A judge may be disqualified if he was formerly associated with one of the parties or their counsel. creditor. To be a ground for disqualification.R. Litigants are entitled to a judge who will decide on the merits of the facts presented. 6. G. 2. G. The Court has held that a judge should not handle a case in which he might be perceived. and then issued warrants of arrest against the party. Canon 3. 5(e). 5(d). The judge’s ruling in a lower court is the subject of review (Sec. A judge who previously notarized the affidavit of a person to be presented as a witness in a case before him shall be disqualified from proceeding with the case. or the judge or lawyer was a material witness therein (Sec. MTJ02 021444. 5(f). The judge. This prohibition also disallows extrajudicial research on the Internet. The judge served as executor. but nevertheless commented that he "should have been more prudent and circumspect and declined to take on the case owing to his earlier involvement in the case”. legatee. was found guilty of serious misconduct and ordered dismissed from the bench before he was able to rescue himself. 1996 An associate justice of the Court of Appeals refused to inhibit himself from reviewing the decision in a case which he had partially heard as a trial judge prior to his promotion. Judajena. but are not limited to instances where: 1. July 20. 5(b). A. 1994 No judge should preside in a case which he is not wholly free. He explained that his delay in inhibiting himself from presiding on that case was because it was only after the belated transcription of the stenographic notes that he remembered that he handled that case. the judge should not have taken part in the proceeding as his impartiality will naturally be questioned considering that he previously handled the case as prosecutor. (Re: Inhibition of Judge Eddie R. If. Canon 3. Should Judge Rojas be reprimanded? A: Yes. 986185 RTC. instead of withdrawing from the proceeding. Section 5. Rojas. A judge disqualified as stated above may. orders. De La Pena. 30. Q: When Atty. Canon 3. independently of the judge’s participation. fiduciary or otherwise. No. Q: What is remittal of disqualification? A: A judge disqualified may. A. The judge has personal knowledge of the evidentiary facts. 6. If the public is aware of a family member’s financial interest. shall be incorporated in the record of the proceedings. (Sec. the judge may then participate in the proceeding. The Rules of Court prevent judges from trying cases where they acted as counsel “without” the consent of the parties. Oct. instead of withdrawing from the proceeding. NCJC) Q: What are the grounds for mandatory disqualification? A: 1.A preliminary injunction issued by a judge in favor of his sister before inhibiting himself was found reprehensible. signed by all parties and lawyers. disclose in the records the basis of disqualification. all agree in writing that the reason for the inhibition is immaterial or insubstantial. February 9. The judge has economic interest of the subject matter of the controversy. NCJC) Note: This rule is intended to ensure judges’ impartiality by preventing situations in which a judge must consider familial interests in the conflicts before him or her. or any other interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceedings. NCJC: Judges shall disqualify themselves from participating in any proceeding in which they are unable to decide the matter impartially or in which it may appear to a reasonable observer that they are unable to decide the matter impartially. The agreement. independently of the judge’s participation. Section 6.M. The prohibition does not only cover hearings but all judicial acts (e. Judge Rojas did make. He also says that the counsels did not object and he never held “full blown” hearings anyway. all agree in writing that the reason for the inhibition is immaterial or unsubstantial. Canon 3. shall be incorporated in the record of the proceedings. Rojas was appointed as a judge. he inherited a criminal case in which he acted as prosecutor. The decision subject of appeal is that of the judge. (g). No. The judge knows that his or her spouse or child has a financial interest as heir. based on such disclosure. signed by all parties and lawyers. (Sec. the public may question the judge’s impartiality. impartial and independent. creditor. 1998) . the parties and lawyers. the judge may then participate in the proceeding. disinterested. the parties and lawyers.M. 7. disclose on the records the basis of disqualification. Here.MTJ92637. He should administer justice impartially & without delay. The agreement. resolutions) some of which. Garcia v. 2. based on such disclosure.g. If. 3. This prevents not only a conflict of interest but also the appearance of impropriety on the part of the judge. in the subject matter in controversy or in a party to the proceeding. legatee. NCJC: A judge disqualified as stated above may. (Perez v. The explanation of the judge whether or not to take cognizance of the case must also be in writing. A judge who is related to a party within the 6 degree of consanguinity is mandated to inhibit himself from hearing the case “notwithstanding lack of pecuniary interest in the case”. This is so because lack of such interest does not mean that she can already be free from bias and partiality in resolving the case by reason of her close blood relationship as evident from the fact that here. instead of withdrawing from the proceeding. 2360MJ. A. Canon 3. The agreement. No.M.Q: Judge Mijares was charged with grave misconduct for taking cognizance and deciding a special proceeding for correction of entry in the record of her grandson. Judge Mijares contended that the prohibition provided for under the Code does not apply to special proceeding which is not controversial in nature and since she does not have any pecuniary interest in the case. as well as to prevent erosion of the people's confidence in the judiciary. 1981) Q: Are the grounds for disqualification of a judge enumerated under Sec. Q: What is inhibition? A: An act when a judge personally prevents himself from taking cognizance of the case. If. Nov. disclose on the records the basis of disqualification. (Villaluz v. signed by all parties and lawyers. In her answer. RRC).” the underlying reason behind his disqualification under the code of judicial conduct and Sec. RTJ 981402 288.M. No. 5 of Canon 3 exclusive? A: No. for just and valid reasons other than those mentioned under Rule 137 of the Rules of Court (2nd Paragraph of Sec. He should make a careful examination by first taking into consideration the following: . Thus. MTJ94436. the same cannot be appealed. Rule 137. Note: If the judge inhibits himself from taking cognizance of the case. Mijares. 2005) Q: What degree of compliance is required by the rule under Canon 3. shall be incorporated in the record of the proceedings. 31. 1998) Note: A judge improperly presided over the preliminary investigation of a criminal complaint wherein the complaining witness was his nephew. Suller. It was also alleged that the judge dispensed with the publication requirement in said proceeding. Aug. 1. This is made through a written petition to inhibit which shall state the grounds for the same. A. The provision provides that it is not limited to the grounds therein provided.M. independently of the judge’s participation. Apr. all agree in writing that the reason for inhibition is immaterial or unsubstantial. in the exercise of his sound discretion. she waived the publication requirement in order to save the petitioner from the payment of publication fee. A. Is the contention correct? th A: No. Q: What are the types of disqualification? A: Mandatory or compulsory disqualification andVoluntary disqualification or inhibition Note: A judge may. because while conducting preliminary investigation may not be construed strictly as “sitting in a case. disqualify himself. the judge may then participate in the proceeding. notwithstanding such relationship. 3. (Marfil v. 1 of Rule 137 are the same. Cuachon. The high court held that the judge should have inhibited himself. 6. 05826SC. (A. the parties and lawyers. No. No. the judge should not immediately inhibit himself. the judge’s taking cognizance of the petition is improper. Oct. Section 6. 1995) Note: Judges no longer conduct preliminary investigations.3. Section 5 of NCJC? A: Strict compliance of the rule is required so as to protect the rights of the parties and assure an impartial administration of justice. However. based on such disclosure.M. April 20. Kho G. Special consideration– He must reflect on the probability that the losing party will nurture at the back of his mind that he tilted the scale of justice Note: The second paragraph of Section 1. This leaves the discretion to the judge to decide for himself questions as to whether he will desist from sitting in a case for other just and valid reasons with only his conscience to guide him. No. Q: A judge rendered a decision in a criminal case finding the accused guilty of estafa.1. 139381. The mere imputation of bias or partiality is not enough ground for a judge to inhibit. unless he cannot discern for himself his inability to meet the test of cold neutrality required of him. In fact. General consideration– whether or not people’s faith in the judicial system will be impaired 2. Q: Does the filing of an administrative case against a judge disqualify him from sitting in a case? A: No. administrator. for just and valid reasons other than the grounds for mandatory disqualification. Counsel for the accused filed a motion for reconsideration which was submitted without arguments. a judge may by mandamus be compelled to act on questions regarding his disqualification from sitting in a case. Q: When should the petition to disqualify be filed? A: The petition to disqualify a judge must be filed before rendition of the judgment. it does not automatically disqualify him. (People v. legatee. The rule on voluntary disqualification or inhibition is discretionary upon the judge on the basis of his conscience. especially when the same is without any basis. 2001) Q: What are the grounds for mandatory disqualification? A: 1. When he has been an executor. or 4.R. in which event the appellate court will see to it that he disqualifies himself. Later. without the written consent of the parties. 3. the parties are deemed to have waived any objection regarding the impartiality of the judge. Can the judge’s voluntary inhibition be sustained? A: The judge may not voluntarily inhibit himself by the mere fact that a lawyer recommended him to the bench. The inhibition must be for just and valid causes. 2. trustee. RRC) Q: When may a judge voluntarily inhibit himself? A: The judge may in his discretion inhibit himself. It must be shown that there are other acts or conducts by the judge which constitute a ground for his disqualification. (Rule 137. When he has presided in an inferior court where his ruling or decision is subject to review. When he is related to either party within the 6 degree of consanguinity or th affinity or to counsel within the 4 civil degree. another lawyer entered his appearance for the accused. Rule 137 does not give the judge the unfettered discretion to decide whether or not he will desist from hearing a case. The judge issued an order inhibiting himself from further sitting in the case because the latter lawyer had been among those who recommended him to the bench. guardian. or th otherwise. Judge’s decision to continue hearing a case in which he is not legally prohibited from trying notwithstanding challenge to his objectivity may not constitute reversible error. or counsel. and cannot be raised on appeal. When he. Otherwise. Q: May mandamus lie to compel a judge to inhibit himself? A: Yes. the appearance of said lawyer is a test as to whether the judge can act . A decision to disqualify himself is not conclusive and his competency may be determined on application for mandamus to compel him to act. or child is pecuniarily interested as heir. or his wife. creditor. per se. Bulacan. Mar. A. Mere intervention of the respondent judge during the hearing of preliminary injunction by simply asking the materiality of a question directed upon the witness and ruling against the petitioners are within the prerogatives and powers of the judge. on the Conflicting Views of Regional Trial Court – Judges Masadao and Elizaga Re: Criminal Case No. 8793918RTC October 26. (Query of Executive Judge Estrella T. classmate. in order to avoid any suspicion of partiality. should not be a hindrance to the administration of justice. Q: What are the requirements for a judge to continue hearing a case despite the existence of reasons for disqualifications? A: 1. 2004). The fact that the judge asked questions in the course of the trial does not make him a biased judge (Hizon v. 23. and 2. No.independently and courageously in deciding the case according to his conscience. DelaFuente.The bona fide disclosure to the parties in litigation. . No. G. it is better for the judge to voluntarily inhibit himself. 1987) Q: Does a judge’s active participation during the hearing of the writ of preliminary injunction amount to an evident display of his bias and partiality in favor of the private respondents and should he therefore disqualify himself from further hearing the civil case? A: No.The express acceptance by all the parties of the cited reason as not material or substantial. ‘Utang na loob’. “Inhibition is not allowed at every instance that a friend.” However.R. Nor should recognition of such value in Philippine society prevent the performance of one’s duties as judge.M. associate or patron of a presiding judge appears before him as counsel for one of the parties to a case. Regional Trial Court of Malolos. 4954M. Estrada. 152328.