Republic of the Philippines

Court of Appeals
Manila

FIFTH DIVISION
JOSEPH F. LOSLOSO
ELIZABETH F. LOSLOSO,

and CA-G.R. SP. NO. 119884

Petitioners,

Members:
CARANDANG, R., Chairman
ROSARIO, R ., and
REAL-DIMAGIBA, L.., JJ.

-versus-

HON. ROGELIO P. CORPUZ, as

Presiding Judge of Regional
Trial Court of Bayombong,
Nueva Vizcaya, Branch 27,
HOLCIM PHILIPPINES, INC. ,

PROMULGATED:
August 12, 2013
_______________________

Respondents.

DECISION
REAL-DIMAGIBA, J.:
Before
application

the Court
for

is a

Temporary

Petition

for

Restraining

Certiorari with
Order

and/or

Preliminary Injunction under Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of

page 2 of 17

C.A.-G.R. SP No. 119884

DECISION
Civil Procedure assailing the public respondent's Joint Order1
dated

06

October 2010 only

insofar as the

denial of

the

petitioners' Motion for Inhibition is concerned and the Order 2

dated 11 April 2011 denying their Motion for Reconsideration
thereof.

The Facts

The facts of the case are as follows:

Private respondent HOLCIM Philippines, Inc. (HPI) filed a

Complaint for Sum of Money & Damages, Rescission of
Contracts, Cancellation of Certificates of Title, and Preliminary
Attachment3

against spouses

Herminigildo

Dela

Cruz

and

Norma Caringal Dela Cruz (spouses Dela Cruz), spouses Dela

Cruz's son Harold Dela Cruz and his wife Clarissa Dela
Cruz4, including

herein

petitioners Joseph

F.

Losloso

and

Elizabeth F. Losloso, the brother-in-law and sister-in-law of

defendant Harold Dela Cruz , Gracia M. Caringal-Sevillana
(Norma

Dela

Cruz's

sister) and

her

husband

Johnny

Sevillena, as well as the Registry of Deeds of the Province of

Nueva Vizcaya before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of
Bayombong, Nueva Vizcaya. The case was assigned to RTC,
1
2
3
4

Rollo, pp. 27-31

Rollo, pp. 32-33
Ibid at 35-79
Also referred to as Clariss Dela Cruz in the case a quo

page 3 of 17

C.A.-G.R. SP No. 119884

DECISION
Branch 27 (trial court).

The HPI alleges that : spouses Dela Cruz ordered bags

of cement amounting to Php13,151,225.00 on 10 November
2008;

the

delivery began on 15 November 2008 and was

completed on 06

December

2008;

by

way

of

payment,

spouses Dela Cruz issued various postdated checks of various

dates which were all deposited at HPI's account at Security
Bank, Santiago Branch on 05

January

2009;

two

days

thereafter, HPI learned that the checks had been dishonored

for reason account closed;

HPI sent several notices of

dishonor/written demands for payment to spouses Dela Cruz

but their notices of return all bear the following notes: party
out no one to receive;

HPI tried to make personal delivery

to spouses Dela Cruz but they could no longer be located

at

their

given

address

and at their other

known

habitual

haunts; spouses Dela Cruz owned six parcels of land

in

Nueva Vizcaya; in anticipation of the lawsuits that would be

filed against them due to the dishonor of the postdated checks
they issued in favor of HPI, spouses Dela Cruz sold to their
son Harold and his wife Clarissa three parcels of land;
Spouses Dela Cruz sold another two (2) parcels of land to their
son's siblings-in-law, herein petitioners Joseph and Elizabeth,
both surnamed Losloso; the remaining sixth parcel of the land
was sold by plaintiff Norma Caringal Dela Cruz to her sister
Gracia Caringal Sevillena and her spouse Johnny Sevillena; all
the certificates of title covering spouses Dela Cruz's real

page 4 of 17

C.A.-G.R. SP No. 119884

DECISION
properties

were cancelled and the Register of Deeds of

Nueva Vizcaya issued new certificate of title in the names of

the purported buyers thereof. Thus, HPI prays, among other
things, that a judgment be rendered: 1) directing spouses
Dela Cruz to pay HPI the amount of Php13,747,121.60;
2) rescinding the contracts of sale executed by spouses Dela
Cruz to their co-defendants; 3) directing the Registry of Deeds
of Nueva Vizcaya to cancel Certificates of title Nos. T151445,T-151446, T-151447,

T-151448,

T-151449

and

T-

151450.

Spouses Dela Cruz filed their Answer with affirmative

defenses. Meanwhile, spouses Johnny and Gracia Sevilleno
filed an Omnibus Motion consisting of a Motion to Strike
their names and Motion to Dismiss. The public respondent,
in its Order5 dated 23 March 2010 denied spouses Dela Cruz
and spouses Sevilleno's motions, 6 the pertinent portions of
which read:
xxx

xxx

xxx

As far as the affirmative defense of failure to state

a cause of action is concerned, this court takes note (of)
the oral arguments of the contending parties xxx The
defendants Losloso assert that the failure of the plaintiff to
allege in its Complaint that there was a previous complaint
for collection of sum of money filed in court against the
defendant Spouses Herminigildo and Norma is fatal to its
cause of action against them considering that the action for
rescission against the other defendants
is subsidiary
pursuant to Article 1383 of the New Civil Code. They
5
6

Rollo, pp. 348-352

Annex F of the petition, Rollo, pp. 348-352

page 5 of 17

C.A.-G.R. SP No. 119884

DECISION
emphasize that the plaintiff should have proven that there
was a hearing on the principal action and a judgment was
rendered by the court which has become final and
executory and a writ of execution issued which failed
because the said defendant spouses do not have any
properties xxx
xxx

xxx

xxx

As held by the Honorable Supreme Court a motion

to dismiss for lack of cause of action has to be resolved
on the basis of hypothetical admission of all material and
relevant facts well pleaded in the Complaint in tandem with
statements and inscriptions on documents attached as
integral parts. (Citation omitted.)
xxx

xxx

xxx

It was even held by the Honorable Supreme Court

that if the court should doubt the truth of the fact averred
at the complaint, it must not dismiss the complaint but
require an answer and proceed to hear the case on the
merit. (Citations omitted.)
xxx

xxx

xxx

On the related issue on whether or not the two

causes of action of collection and of rescission could be
lumped together, the court having found that the first
cause concerns the other defendant Spouses Herminigildo
and Norma and the second relates to the other
defendants, find the pronouncement of the Honorable
Supreme Court applicable and decisive on this point, to
wit:
As this Court has explained in the San Lorenzo
case, such a course would preclude multiplicity of suits
which the law abhors and condusive to the definitive
determination and termination of the dispute. To do
otherwise, that is , to abort the action on account of the
alleged flaws of the complaint would obviously be indecisive
and would not end the controversy, since the institution of
another action upon a revised complaint would not be
foreclosed. (Citation omitted.)
xxx

xxx

xxx

In fine, the court does not find the motions of the

C.A.-G.R. SP No. 119884

page 6 of 17

DECISION
defendants impressed with merit. xxx The facts and
circumstances unraveled in the proceedings held during
scheduled hearings will give the impression that
rescission will lie as shown by the attached documents
and various conveyances of real properties executed by
the defendant spouses Herminigildo and Norma at a time
they had to pay their obligations to several creditors
amounting to millions of pesos. To the mind of this court,
these motions to dismiss will not lie because there is a
need to thresh out factual issues one of which is
whether or not the defendant Spouses Herminigildo
and Norma have properties for their indebtedness to
the plaintiff.
With the declaration of the court in its Order on
January 27, 2010 that the defendant Spouses Herminigildo
and Norma are in default for their failure to file their
Answer or any responsive pleading to the plaintiff's
Complaint, it should then be proper and appropriate to
have the present civil case proceed and take its course
so that the plaintiff could prove that these defendants do
not have properties.
And with the foregoing findings which similarly affect
them as they, being registered property co-owners with
defendant Spouses Herminigildo and Norma of that land
then covered by TCT No. T-113159, are to be prejudiced
by any action of the court against their co-vendors and
the vendees, herein defendants Losloso, the defendant
Spouses Sevillena must necessarily file their Answer to the
plaintiff's Complaint.
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing:
1. The Omnibus Motion consisting of Motion to Strike (sic)
the Names of Spouses Johnny and Gracia Sevillena and
Motion to Dismiss is hereby DENIED for lack of merit and
the court hereby directs the defendant Spouses Sevillena to
file their Answer to the plaintiff's Complaint within the period
allowed by the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.
2. The Motion to Dismiss in the form of affirmative
defenses embodied in the individual Answers of defendants
Losloso and defendant Spouses Harold and Clariss are
both DENIED for lack of merit.

page 7 of 17

C.A.-G.R. SP No. 119884

DECISION
On 02 June 2010, herein petitioners, siblings Joseph F.
Losloso and Elizabeth F. Losloso, filed a motion for inhibition
against the public respondent on the ground that in his 23 March
2010 Order, he has already shown bias by prejudging not only
the collection case against spouses Dela Cruz but also the
accion pauliana against them and their other co-defendants.
They claimed that the public respondent

appears to have

favorably resolved the case in favor of the

HPI when he

stated that the only issue to be proven is whether said

defendants

still

have

remaining properties.

They

also

questioned the respondent judge's ruling that rescission would

lie

as

shown

by

the

attached

documents of

various

conveyances of real properties without the benefit of pre-trial

or any proceedings for the ascertainment of facts.

The public respondent, in his assailed Order 7 of 06

October 2010, denied prejudging the case and stated that
herein petitioners only took portions of the 23 March 2010
Order and left those that fully explain the reasons for its
issuance. He clarified that the HPI still have to prove the
indebtedness of spouses Dela Cruz and show that the latter
do not have properties anymore before

HPI could proceed

against the other defendants. Further, the public respondent

respondent declared that siblings Loslosos' charge of bias and
partiality without proof

and mere divergence of opinions

between a judge and a party's counsel as to applicable laws

7

Joint Order dated 06 October 2010, Rollo, pp. 27-31

page 8 of 17

C.A.-G.R. SP No. 119884

DECISION
are not sufficient grounds to disqualify him from hearing the
case. Accordingly, he denied petitioners' Motion for Inhibition
and motion for reconsideration of the 23 March 2010 Order.

Their motion for reconsideration, having been denied on

11 April 2011, the petitioners come to this court via

the

instant petition assailing the 06 October 2010 Order only

insofar as the denial of the petitioners' Motion for Inhibition is
concerned and submitting the sole issue of:

WHETHER THE
RESPONDENT
JUDGE
COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION
AMOUNTING TO LACK OR EXCESS OF
JURISDICTION IN REFUSING TO INHIBIT
HIMSELF FROM HANDLING THE CASE A
QUO WHEN HE HAS CLEARLY PREJUDGED
THE CASE AGAINST THE PETITIONERS,
BOTH IN THE COLLECTION AND ACCION
PAULIANA SUITS.8

Ruling
First, We take
rendered by

this

judicial

notice

of

Court (Fifth Division) 10 in

the

Decision 9

CA-G.R. SP No.

117525 also entitled Joseph Losloso and Elizabeth Losloso v.

8
9
10

The second issue raised by petitioner is the same as first although worded differently, as follows:
Whether the respondent committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction in rejecting the request for his recusal, Rollo, p. 12
Ibid. at 717-725
Composed then of Justice Amelita Tolentino, as Chairman, with Justices Ramon Garcia and
Samuel Gaerlan as members

page 9 of 17

C.A.-G.R. SP No. 119884

DECISION
Rogelio Corpuz and Holcim Philippines, Inc. on 15 June 2012
wherein

herein

petitioners

sought

the

nullification

of

respondent Judge's Order dated 23 March 2010 and

the
Joint

Order dated 06 October 2010 both for having been issued with
grave abuse of discretion.

In the Court's 15 June 2012

Decision, the Court held :

The judicial posture of public respondent in refusing

to dismiss the accion puliana against petitioners, included
in the Complaint filed by the private respondent, on the
ground of lack of cause of action for failure to show that
private respondent has no other legal remedy to satisfy its
claim, demonstrates grave abuse of discretion amounting
to lack or excess of jurisdiction.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant petition
is GRANTED. The assailed Order, dated 23 March 2010,
as well as the Joint Order, dated 6 October 2010, issued
by public respondent in Civil Case No. 6937 are hereby
ANNULLED and SET ASIDE. The accion pauliana against
petitioners is hereby DISMISSED. (Emphasis supplied)

A close scrutiny of above-quoted decision reveals that

the issue raised in CA-G.R. No. 117525 concerns only that part
of the respondent Judge's 06 October 2010 Joint Order
denying petitioners' motion for reconsideration of the 23
March 2010 Order which denied their motion to dismiss. The
Court's 15 June 2012 Order was elevated by HPI's to the
Supreme Court via a petition for review, which is still awaiting
resolution.

page 10 of 17

C.A.-G.R. SP No. 119884

DECISION

In

the

present

petition,

petitioners raise

no

new

argument. They reiterate that the public respondent instead of

waiting for HPI to prove its cause of action for collection of
sum of money against spouses Dela Cruz, appears to have
already favorably resolved the same for HPI when he stated
that the only issue to be resolved in the case a quo is
whether spouses Dela Cruz still have remaining properties.
Further, they maintain that the public respondent has already
prejudged

not only the collection case against the principal

defendants spouses Herminigildo and Norma Dela Cruz, but

particularly the accion pauliana suit when he declared in his
23 March 2010 Order that rescission will lie against herein
petitioners.

They

argue that such

respondent judge have caused

them

declarations

of

the

to lose their faith and

confidence in his impartiality to handle the case.

While We held in C.A.- G.R. No. 117525 that the public

respondent committed grave abuse of discretion in denying
petitioners' motion to dismiss for lack of cause of action and
in dismissing the accion pauliana case against them, We cannot
hold the same in the present case.

The public respondent has already addressed the charge

that he has already prejudged the collection case against the
principal defendants spouses Dela Cruz and the accion pauliana

page 11 of 17

C.A.-G.R. SP No. 119884

DECISION
against the petitioners. In the assailed Joint Order of 06
October 2001, the public respondent assured the petitioners
that their fear is baseless. He clarified that

HPI still has to

prove the indebtedness of spouses Dela Cruz and show that

the latter do not have properties anymore before it could
proceed against the herein petitioners and the other defendants.

The questioned statements of the respondent Judge in his

23

March

2010

Order , which impelled

petitioners

inhibition motion against him, actually read as follows:

(T)he court does not find the motions of the
defendants impressed with merit. xxx The facts and
circumstances unraveled in the proceedings held during
scheduled hearings will give the impression that
rescission will lie as shown by the attached
documents and various conveyances of real properties
executed by the defendant spouses Herminigildo and
Norma at a time they had to pay their obligations to
several creditors amounting to millions of pesos. To the
mind of this court, these motions to dismiss will not
lie because there is a need to thresh out factual
issues one of which is whether or not the
defendant Spouses Herminigildo and Norma have
properties for their indebtedness to the plaintiff.
With the declaration of the court in its Order on
January 27, 2010
that
the
defendant Spouses
Herminigildo and Norma are in default for their failure
to file their Answer or any responsive pleading to the
plaintiff's Complaint, it should then be proper and
appropriate to have the present civil case proceed and
take its course so that the plaintiff could prove that
these defendants do not have properties.

to

file

C.A.-G.R. SP No. 119884

page 12 of 17

DECISION
The clarification made in the assailed 06 October 2010
Order of the public respondent reads, thus:

Contrary, therefore , to the belief of the

defendants-movants, there could be no prejudgment of
this case because , as admitted by the plaintiff itself in
its Comments, the plaintiff would have to present its
claim, prove the indebtedness of the defendants
Dela Cruz and show that the latter do not have
properties anymore before the plaintiff would proceed
against the other defendants. And so, the fear of
these movants that rescission will lie without the benefit
of pre-trial, trial or any other proceedings is clearly
without basis. (Emphasis supplied.)
xxx
Citing Supreme Court's decisions, the respondent
Judge stated that bias and prejudice on the part of the
judge must be shown to have stemmed from an
extrajudicial source and result in an opinion on the
merits of the case on some basis other than what the
judge learned from his participation in the case;
opinions formed in the course of judicial proceedings ,
although erroneous , as long as they are based on
evidence presented and conduct observed by the judge,
do not prove bias or prejudice on the part of the
judge...
xxx (T)his court finds the foregoing disquisitions
in its rulings on the Motion for Inhibition relevant and
sufficient reasons to dispose of this Motion. The
clarifications made by the court thereat further simplify
and conveniently show
that this Motion for
Reconsideration may not after all lie and be reason
enough to disregard its previous ruling on March 23,
2010. And with the observation that the court had
exhaustively discussed the same divergent positions of
the parties in the assailed Order , this court finds no
clear and convincing reason to depart from its previous
ruling of March 23, 2010.

C.A.-G.R. SP No. 119884

page 13 of 17

DECISION
The rule on inhibition and disqualification of judges is laid
down in Section 1, Rule 137 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 the
civil law, or in which he has been executor, administrator,
guardian, trustee or counsel, or in which he has presided in
any inferior court when his ruling or decision is the subject of
review, without the written consent of all parties in interest,
signed by them and entered upon the record.
A judge may, in the exercise of his sound discretion,
disqualify himself from sitting in a case, for just or valid
reasons other than those mentioned above.

The Rules contemplate two kinds of inhibition: 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.11

In the case of Philippine Commercial International Bank v.

Dy Hong Pi,12 the Supreme Court ruled that the mere imputation
of bias or partiality is not enough ground for inhibition, especially
11

12

BGen. (Ret.) Ramiscal. Jr., v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 173057-74. September 27, 2010 citing
Pagoda Philippines, Inc. v. Universal Canning, Inc., G.R. No. 160966, October 11, 2005, 472 SCRA 355,
360-361, citing Gochan v. Gochan, 446 Phil. 433, 446 (2003) and People v. Kho, G.R. No. 139381, April
20, 2001, 357 SCRA 290, 296.
G.R. No. 171137, June 5, 2009, 588 SCRA 612, 632.

page 14 of 17

C.A.-G.R. SP No. 119884

DECISION
when the charge is without basis. This ruling was reiterated in
the recent case of Rodica v. Lazaro,

et.

al.13

It

is well

to

remember that extrinsic evidence must be presented to establish

bias, bad faith, malice, or corrupt purpose, in addition to palpable
error which may be inferred from the decision or order itself. 14 The
complainant has to show that the conduct or acts of the judge
are clearly indicative of arbitrariness or prejudice before the latter
can be branded the stigma of being biased or partial. 15

A circumspective analysis of the assailed orders belies the

petitioners' charge of bias or partiality. The public respondent's 23
March 2010
albeit

Order

issued with

denying
grave

petitioners'
abuse

of

motion to dismiss ,
discretion, does

not

automatically translate to bias or partiality on the part of the

public respondent. To the mind of the public respondent, the
lumping of the collection case against spouses Dela Cruz with
subsidiary case (accion pauliana) against siblings Losloso and
other defendants will preclude multiplicity of suits which the
law abhors and conducive to the definitive determination and
termination

of

the dispute.

Although we find the public

respondent's ruling to be gravely erroneous, We

could

not

discern any outward manifestation of bias or prejudice thereon.

An allegation of prejudgment, without proof, constitutes mere

13
14
15

A.C. No. 9259. March 13, 2013

BGen. (Ret.) Ramiscal. Jr., v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 173057-74, September 27, 2010
Ibid. citing Pagoda Philippines, Inc. v. Universal Canning, Inc., G.R. No. 160966, October 11, 2005, 472
SCRA 355, 360-361

page 15 of 17

C.A.-G.R. SP No. 119884

DECISION
conjecture and is not one of the just or valid reasons contemplated
in the second paragraph of Section 1, Rule 137 of the Rules of
Court for which a judge may inhibit himself from hearing the case.
Moreover, opinions formed in the course of judicial proceedings,
as long as they are based on the evidence presented and conduct
observed by the judge, even if found later on to be erroneous, do
not prove personal bias or prejudice on the part of the judge. 16
Accordingly,

petitioners'

bare

allegations

of

the

public

respondent's partiality will not suffice in the absence of clear and

convincing evidence to overcome the presumption that as a
judge, he will undertake his noble role of dispensing justice in
accordance with law and evidence, and without fear or favor.
Verily, for bias and prejudice to be considered valid reasons for the
involuntary inhibition of judges, mere suspicion is not enough. 17
Therefore, the denial of petitioners' motion for inhibition was not
whimsical or capricious.

We hasten to stress that a party aggrieved by erroneous

interlocutory rulings in the course of a trial is not without remedy,
which the petitioners actually did when they filed the petition
assailing the 23 March 2010 Order of the public respondent
to which the Court acted favorably. The remedy for erroneous
rulings, absent any extrinsic evidence of malice or bad faith, is not
the outright disqualification of the judge. For there is yet to come a
judge with the omniscience to issue rulings that are always
infallible. The courts will close shop if we disqualify judges who err
16
17

Viesca v. Gilinsky, G.R. No. 171698, July 4, 2007

See Note 13

page 16 of 17

C.A.-G.R. SP No. 119884

DECISION
for we all err. 18

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED.

The Resolutions

dated 06 October 2010 of the public respondent insofar as the

denial

of petitioners' motion for inhibition is

concerned is

AFFIRMED and UPHELD.

SO OREDERED.

LEONCIA REAL- DIMAGIBA

Associate Justice

WE CONCUR:

ROSMARI D. CARANDANG
Associate Justice

18

RICARDO R. ROSARIO
Associate Justice

Philippine Commercial International Bank v. Spouses Wilson Dy Hong Pi and Lolita Dy, et al., G.R.
No. 171137. June 5, 2009

page 17 of 17

C.A.-G.R. SP No. 119884

DECISION

CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Article VIII, Section 13 of the Constitution, it is hereby certified
that the conclusions in the above decision were reached in consultation before
the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court.

ROSMARI D. CARANDANG
Associate Justice
Chairman, Fifth Division