Professional Documents
Culture Documents
DOCTRINE: Rule 37 enumerates the disqualification of a judge upon being 6. Hence, Atty. Pimentel filed this original petition for certiorari and/or prohibition
challenged and under which he should disqualify himself. The rule, however, has before the SC, where the right of Judge Salanga to sit in judgment in the
never been interpreted to prohibit a judge from voluntarily inhibiting himself in aforementioned cases is being challenged.
the absence of any challenge by either party. Voluntary inhibition, based on
good, sound and/or ethical grounds, is a matter of discretion on the part of the 7. Atty. Pimentel argues that an immediate resolution of the problem of
judge and the official who is empowered to act upon the request for such disqualification is a matter of profound importance, particularly on his career and
inhibition. potential as a practitioner of law. His cases may fall by the accident of raffle into
the sala of Judge Salanga and he cannot resign from an accepted case every time
it falls therein. Furthermore, he states that his clients will have the natural sprang the added seconf paragrapg in Section 1, Rule 137. Under the
hesitation to retain as counsel one who is sort of unacceptable to the presiding said case, the SC said that obviously Rule 26 [now 37] enumerates the
judge. disqualification of a judge upon being challenged and under which he
should disqualify himself. The rule, however, has never been
interpreted to prohibit a judge from voluntarily inhibiting himself
ISSUE: Whether Judge Salanga on the basis of Atty. Pimetel’s contentions should in the absence of any challenge by either party.
disqualify himself or recuse from deciding the aforementioned cases. (NO)
c. Considering the spirit of the Rule, it would seem that cases of
RULING: Upon the premises, the petition herein for certiorari and prohibition is denied. voluntary inhibition, based on good, sound and/or ethical grounds,
So ordered. is a matter of discretion on the part of the judge and the official who
RELEVANT PROVISION: is empowered to act upon the request for such inhibition.
Rule 137, Section 1, Rules of Court: 4. The exercise of sound discretion — mentioned in the rule — has reference
exclusively to a situation where a judge disqualifies himself, not when he goes
Section 1. Disqualification of judges. — No judge or judicial officer shall sit in forward with the case. This means when a judge does not inhibit himself, and
any case in which he, or his wife or child, is pecuniarily interested as heir, legatee, he is not legally disqualified by the first paragraph of Section 1, Rule 137,
creditor or otherwise, or in which he is related to either party within the sixth the rule remains as it has been — he has to continue with the case.
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, 5. This is not to say that all avenues of relief are closed to a party properly aggrieved.
administrator, guardian, trustee or counsel, or in which he has presided in any If a litigant is denied a fair and impartial trial, induced by the judge's bias or
inferior court when his ruling or decision is the subject to review, without the prejudice, we will not hesitate to order a new trial, if necessary, in the interest of
written consent of all parties in interest, signed by them and entered upon the justice.
record.
6. It ill behooves this Court to tar and feather a judge as biased or prejudiced,
A judge may, in the exercise of his sound discretion, disqualify himself from simply because counsel for a party litigant happens to complain against him.
sitting in a case, for just or valid reasons other than those mentioned above. No act or conduct of his would show arbitrariness or prejudice. Therefore,
we are not to assume what respondent judge, not otherwise legally
disqualified, will do in a case before him.
RATIO:
7. To disqualify or not to disqualify himself then, as far as respondent judge is
1. Atty. Pimentel is of the position that his case comes within the coverage of concerned, is a matter of conscience.
paragraph 2 of Section 1, Rule 137, ROC. (i.e “A judge may, in the exercise of
his sound discretion, disqualify himself from sitting in a case, for just or valid 8. As a general rule, a judge may not be legally prohibited from sitting in a litigation.
reasons other than those mentioned above.”) 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 a litigant arising out of
2. Furthermore, Atty. Pimentel stresses that Judge Salanga, in the factual circumstances reasonably capable of inciting such a state of mind, he should
environment presented, did not make use of his sound discretion when he refused conduct a careful self-examination.
to disqualify himself from acting in the cases referred to.
9. He should, therefore, exercise great care and caution before making up his mind
3. [Background/History of Provision] Before the second paragraph of Section 1, to act in or withdraw from a suit where that party or counsel is involved.
Rule 137 came into being, the law and early jurisprudence gave no room for
judges to disqualify himself, absent any of the specific grounds fro 10. If after reflection he should resolve to voluntarily desist from sitting in a case
disqualification in the law. where his motives or fairness might be seriously impugned, his action is to be
interpreted as giving meaning and substances to the second paragraph of Section
a. Under this rule, to take or not to take cognizance of a case does not 1, Rule 137. He serves the cause of the law who forestalls miscarriage of justice.
depend upon the discretion of a judge not legally disqualified to sit in a
given case. It is his duty not to sit in its trial and decision if legally 11. In the case at bar, the SC is persuaded to say that since respondent judge is
disqualified; but if the judge is not disqualified, it is a matter of official not legally under obligation to disqualify himself, it cannot, on certiorari or
duty for him to proceed with the trial and decision of the case. prohibition, prevent him from sitting, trying and rendering judgment in the
cases herein mentioned.
b. However, then came the case of Del Castillo v. Javelona, from which
130 SANDOVAL v. CA (JA) looking for his copy of the TCT.
Aug 01, 1996 | Romero, J. | Inhibition (hot and fresh out the kitchen, mama rolling that body) 5. In November 1984, he discovered that the adverse claim of one Godofredo
Valmeo had been annotated on his title in the Registry of Deeds.
PETITIONER: JUAN C. SANDOVAL a. A Lorenzo L. Tan, Jr., obviously an impostor, had mortgaged the
property to Valmeo on October 9, 1984 to secure a P70,000.00
RESPONDENTS: COURT OF APPEALS, LORENZO L. TAN JR. obligation.
SUMMARY: 6. On December 6, 1984, the real Lorenzo L. Tan, Jr. herein private respondent,
This case involves a land dispute between Sandoval and Lorenzo Tan Jr. Tan is the filed a complaint for cancellation of the annotation of mortgage and damages
registered owner of a parcel of land. He eventually found out through the register of against Bienvenido Almeda and Godofredo Valmeo before the RTC
deeds that his land was fraudulently mortgaged by an impostor. The land was 7. Sometime in April 1985, Tan met petitioner Juan C. Sandoval who claimed to be
eventually registered under Sandoval’s name. Hence, Tan filed a complaint the new owner at the site of the property.
impleading Sandoval. He prayed for the nullification of the deed of sale, as well as a a. He informed the latter of the case against Bienvenido Almeda and
Godofredo Valmeo.
cancellation of the TCTs in his name. The trial court ruled in favor of private
8. Upon further investigation, petitioner discovered that as early as September 13,
respondent Tan, Jr. On appeal, the CA affirmed the trial court's findings. Sandoval 1984, someone purporting to be Lorenzo L. Tan, Jr. sold the property to
filed this petition for review claiming that the ponente of the decision in the Court of Bienvenido Almeda in a Deed of Sale of Registered Land with Pacto de Retro.
Appeals, Justice Luis Victor should have inhibited himself from the case inasmuch a. Said person representing himself as Lorenzo L. Tan, Jr., with the marital
because for a time, he was the presiding judge in the court a quo trying the case. The consent of the alleged Carolina Mangampo Tan, also executed a Waiver
SC found no legal basis for Justice Victor to inhibit himself from deciding the case. in favor of Bienvenido Almeda
He presided partly over the case below, heard part of plaintiff's evidence and ruled on b. As a result, a TCT in the name of Lorenzo L. Tan, Jr. was cancelled and
a new one was issued in the name of Bienvenido Almeda.
motions. The decision itself, however, was penned by another judge, the Honorable
c. On March 29, 1985, Bienvenido Almeda sold the subject property to
Lucas Bersamin, who took over as presiding judge when then Judge Luis Victor was petitioner Juan C. Sandoval.
promoted. Upon elevation to the Court of Appeals, the case was assigned to Justice d. TCT was again cancelled and a new one was issued in the name of
Victor as ponente. Granted that Justice Victor presided partly over the case in the Sandoval.
court a quo, his was not the pen that finally rendered the decision therein. Hence, he 9. Private respondent's original complaint was accordingly amended in August 1985
cannot be said to have been placed in a position where he had to review his own to implead petitioner Juan C. Sandoval and to add the following as causes of
action:
decision as judge in the trial court. Nevertheless, Justice Victor should have been more
a. the nullification of the deed of sale with pacto de retro
prudent and circumspect and declined to take on the case, owing to his earlier b. the waiver and the cancellation of TCTs.
involvement in the case. i. Private respondent alleged that petitioner had prior knowledge
of legal flaws which tainted Bienvenido Almeda's title.
DOCTRINE: 10. Tan caused the annotation of a notice of lis pendens on the TCT
A judge should not handle a case in which he might be perceived, rightly or wrongly, 11. Sandoval countered that he was a purchaser in good faith and for valuable
to be susceptible to bias and partiality, which axiom is intended to preserve and consideration.
promote public confidence in the integrity and respect for the judiciary. a. He bought the property through real estate brokers whom he contacted
after seeing the property advertised in the March 3, 1985 issue of the
FACTS: Manila Bulletin.
(Facts 1-15 aren’t really important. They just give the background of the “purchaser in b. After guarantees were given by the brokers and his lawyer's go-signal
good faith” aspect of the case. Not really relevant to our topic, so enuff na summary box) to purchase the property, petitioner negotiated with Bienvenido Almeda.
1. In the case at bar, it appears that an impostor succeeded in selling property c. The price was paid in two installments. As earlier noted, Bienvenido
lawfully titled in another's name by misrepresenting himself as the latter. Almeda executed a Deed of Sale in favor of petitioner and a new TCT
2. The property subject of the present controversy is a parcel of land on which a was issued in the latter's name.
five-door apartment building stands. It is covered by a TCT in the name of 12. The trial court ruled in favor of private respondent Tan, Jr.
"Lorenzo L. Tan, Jr. married to Carolina Mangampo" 13. Only Juan C. Sandoval, herein petitioner, appealed the decision.
3. Sometime in October 1984, private respondent Lorenzo L. Tan, Jr. was notified 14. CA reduced appellant's sixteen assignment of errors to two basic issues:
of the need to present his owner's copy of the TCT to the Registry of Deeds, a. the validity of the Deed of Real Estate Mortgage executed on October
Quezon City in connection with an adverse claim. 9, 1984 in favor of Godofredo Valmeo and the Deed of Sale of
4. Upon reaching the Office of the Register of Deeds, he explained that he was still Registered Land with Pacto de Retro in favor of Bienvenido Almeda
b. whether or not Juan C. Sandoval is a purchaser in good faith. association, or the judge or lawyer was a material witness therein;
15. The CA affirmed the trial court's findings modifying only the award for damages
and attorney's fees. (c) the judge's ruling in a lower court is the subject of review;
a. Respondent court confirmed the invalidity of the aforementioned
documents and (d) the judge is related by consanguinity or affinity to a party litigant within the sixth degree or
b. held that the circumstances outlined by the trial court should have so to counsel within the fourth degree;
aroused petitioner's suspicion as to impel him to conduct further inquiry
into his vendor's title. (e) the judge knows that the judge's spouse or child has a financial interest, as heir, legatee,
16. Hence, this petition for review where Juan C. Sandoval prays for the reversal of creditor, fiduciary or otherwise, in the subject matter in controversy or in a party to the
proceeding, or any other interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the
the Court of Appeals decision.
proceeding.
a. he was denied due process when the ponente of the decision in the Court
of Appeals, Justice Luis Victor, did not inhibit himself from the case
In every instance the judge shall indicate the legal reason for inhibition."
inasmuch as he was, for a time, the presiding judge in the court a quo
trying the case. 3. The Canons of Judicial Ethics provides us with more general guidelines:
b. Second, petitioner maintains that he is an innocent purchaser for value "3. Avoidance of appearance of impropriety
who should not be held accountable for the fraud committed against
A judge's official conduct should be free from the appearance of impropriety, and his personal
private respondent Tan, Jr.
behavior, not only upon the bench and in the performance of judicial duties, but also in his
ISSUES:
every day life, should be beyond reproach.
1. W/N the Justice who penned the assailed decision in the Court of Appeals should
have inhibited himself from taking part in the case. NO
2. W/N petitioner Juan Sandoval is a purchaser in good faith NO (not important) xxx xxx xxx
RULING:
WHEREFORE, the instant petition for review is hereby DENIED. The decision of the 31. A summary of judicial obligations
Court of Appeals in "Lorenzo L. Tan, Jr. v. Bienvenido Almeda," (CA G.R. CV No. 33265)
is AFFIRMED. A judge's conduct should be above reproach and in the discharge of his judicial duties he should be
conscientious, studious, thorough, courteous, patient, punctual, just, impartial, fearless of public clamour,
RATIO: and regardless of private influence should administer justice according to law and should deal with the
FIRST ISSUE: patronage of the position as a public trust; and he should not allow outside matters or his private interests
1. Rule 137 of the Revised Rules of Court, Section 1 reads: to interfere with the prompt and proper performance of his office."
"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 4. From the foregoing legal principles, we find no basis for Justice Victor to
in which he is related to either party within the sixth degree of consanguinity or affinity, or to
inhibit himself from deciding the case.
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 a. He presided partly over the case below, heard part of plaintiff's
any inferior court when his ruling or decision is the subject of review, without the written evidence and ruled on motions.
consent of all parties in interest, signed by them and entered upon the record. b. The decision itself, however, was penned by another judge, the
Honorable Lucas Bersamin, who took over as presiding judge
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." when then Judge Luis Victor was promoted.
2. The Code of Judicial Conduct spells out in Rule 3.12 the disqualifications c. Upon elevation to the Court of Appeals, the case was assigned to
of a judge: Justice Victor as ponente.
"Rule 3.12. - A judge should take no part in a proceeding where the judge's impartiality 5. The principle that approximates the situation obtaining herein is the
might reasonably be questioned. These cases include, among others, proceedings where: disqualification of a judge from deciding a case where his "ruling in a lower
court is the subject of review" or "in which he has presided in any inferior
(a) the judge has personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding;
court when his ruling or decision is the subject of review."
(b) the judge served as executor, administrator, guardian, trustee or lawyer in the case or a. Granted that Justice Victor presided partly over the case in the
matters in controversy, or a former associate of the judge served as counsel during their court a quo, his was not the pen that finally rendered the decision
therein. e. The certification appearing on the deed of sale that the property was
b. Hence, he cannot be said to have been placed in a position where not tenanted was plainly untrue.
he had to review his own decision as judge in the trial court.
6. Nevertheless, Justice Victor should have been more prudent and
circumspect and declined to take on the case, owing to his earlier
involvement in the case.
7. The Court has held that a judge should not handle a case in which he might
be perceived, rightly or wrongly, to be susceptible to bias and
partiality, which axiom is intended to preserve and promote public
confidence in the integrity and respect for the judiciary.
a. While he is not legally required to decline from taking part in the
case, it is our considered view that his active participation in the
case below constitutes a "just or valid reason," under Section 1 of
Rule 137 for him to voluntarily inhibit himself from the case.
2. A purchaser in good faith is one who buys property of another, without notice
that some other person has a right to, or interest in, such property and pays a
full and fair price for the same, at the time of such purchase, or before he has
notice of the claim or interest of some other persons in the property
a. There were two copies of TCT in the Register of Deeds, only one of
which could be genuine. By the time that the sale to Sandoval was
being negotiated, therefore, the two copies of TCT were already in
the files of the Register of Deeds. Sandoval was aware in fact of the
irregularity attending TCTs.
ISSUE:
1. WoN Meneses was correct in inhibiting himself? NO, he is incorrect.
RULING: WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The assailed Orders of the
respondent Judge are SET ASIDE and he is directed to proceed with dispatch in
resolving the election protests at bar. No costs.
RATIO: