Pau Duman \ Leg Prof \ Dean Agabin \ I-E
Fecundo vs. Berjamen
Facts:
• Before the Court is a prayer for a restraining order to inhibit resp judge Hon.
Berjamen of the RTC Mambuso Capiz from continuing with the trial of an
election protest filed by resp Salcedo against pet Fecundo bec of his
partiality and bias against pet.
• Pet alleged that the ff acts show his partiality and bias:
a. unbecoming language which states that “the implementation of the order of
this Court is vehemently opposed by the municipal mayor and his cohorts…
we have a government of laws and not of rascals…to give in to pet is like
savages in the jungle where might is right.
b. Severely reprimanding and scolding in open court the pet’s secretary thus
exposing her to mockery and ridicule.
c. Personal interest of judge by inquiring from one of the commissioners the
revision of the ballots
d. Judge is beholden to Cong. Villareal whose picture is hanged on the judge’s
office. Villareal is a known supporter of the resp and that the cong has
worked for the appointment of the judge.
e. Statement of judge that motion of pet for motion for reconsideration of the
denial of the motion to inhibit him, the judge, will be denied.
• The acts of the judge are not in consonance with the standard of cold
neutrality of an impartial judge and thus he is not trusted to render a fair
and impartial decision.
• The incidents of the election protest are that in 1988 during the local
elections, Fecundo won with a margin of 100 votes so Salcedo filed an
election protest and was assigned to resp judge.
• The resp judge issued an order directing the Municpal Treasurer of
Dumalag to deliver to the courts the ballot boxes subject of the protest.
And the Municipal Treasurer addressed a letter to the judge stating that the
mayor and his cohorts are threatening the treasurer of his life if he insists on
bringing the ballots as stipulated in judge’s order. On the same day the judge
issued the order already adverted to after the pet has filed an answer with
counter protest.
• The First Division of the Court has issued a TRO but was dismissed due to
failure to show grave abuse of discretion of lack of or excess of jurisdiction.
• Pet filed a motion for inhibition on April 18 with a notice of hearing on
April 20 but both parties failed to indicate in the records of this case
whether a hearing actually took place on the motion but the judge denied
the motion for non-compliance with the 3 day notice rule.
• No motion for recon was filed by pet bec of judge’s statement that the Court
will just deny when it receives it.
• There was also an allegation that the pet was not furnished with a copy of
the Feb 10 order which was the order to deliver the ballot boxes subject of
protest.
• Resp contends pet is just delaying the resolution of the election bec there is
a probability that pet will lose the election.
• Resp judge denies all accusations imputing to pet wild imagination and
political immaturity and childish mentality. The letter they have alleged that
came from the judge is just a part of the Treasurer’s letter and that the
others are just reminders and advice to pet to respect and recognize the
auth of the court.
Issue:
WON the judge should inhibit himself from continuing the trial of the election protest.
Held:
YES. A spotless dispensation of justice requires not only that the decision rendered be
intrinsically fair but that the judge rendering it must, at all times, maintain the
appearance of fairness and impartiality.
• Pet alleged gross disregard of RULE 137 of ROC which is the Disqulification
of Judicial Officers which states how objection should be made. –In writing
stating the grounds thereupon to disqualify the judge and the judge shall
make his decision in writing as well but no appeal or stay shall be allowed
from his decision in favor of his own competency
• On 3-day notice rule: Court held that it was proper for the judge to dismiss
the motion bec the Rules of Court clearly states that a motion which does
not meet the req of sec 4 and 15 of ROC is considered a worthless paper.
Service of copy of motion containing notice of time and place of said hearing
is a mandatory requirement.
• Pet alleged that the election contest has reached the stage of presentation
of evidence which is way ahead as compared with other election protests
but on this issue the Court held that this is non-sequitur. Speedy disposition
doesn’t connote partiality considering that this is an election protest.
• Although it is not enough that partiality is merely alleged; it should be
proven and should not be based on mere suspicion. There should be
evidence to prove the charge.
• However the Court reiterated decision in Santos vs. Gutierrez where in the
Court held that the “duty of rendering a just decision is the duty of doing it
in a manner that will not arouse any suspicion as to its fairness and the
integrity of the Judge. However upright the judge is, there is peril of his
unconscious bias or prejudice, or lest any former opinion formed ex parte
may still linger to affect unconsciously his present judgment.”
• Appearance of strict impartiality should be maintained.
• Case was transferred to the newly appointed judge Julius Abella and the
the proceeding should be decided upon within 3 months from notice of the
decision.
Petition granted.

Aparicio vs. Andal
FACTS:
• What are assailed here are the orders of the respondent judge in certain
criminal and civil cases.
• What the petitioner wrote on his Motion for Inhibition is for the resp judge
to inhibit himself from trying, hearing or any manner acting on all cases,
civil and criminal, in which the Movant or the herein petition is involved
and handling.
• However, considering the aforecited motion, Judge Andal still issued the
substantially identical orders assailed herein.
ISSUE:
WON Judge Andal acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of
jurisdiction when he denied the Pet Motion for Inhibition in several criminal and civil
cases and continued in taking cognizance of said cases and all other cases pending
before him.
HELD:
No. There is no valid ground relied upon to support pet motion.
• Pet maintains that there is an existing state of hostility bet the judge and
him sparked by his filing of petitions for certiorari and administrative
cases against the judge.
• By Judge’s refusal to inhibit himself, Judge Andal has violated his
constitutional rights to due process, equal protection of the law, acess to
the court and speedy disposition of cases thus making the judge civilly
liable under Art. 32 of the CC. Bec of the Judge’s refusal, pet and his family
have suffered from mental anguish and incurred expenses for which they
must be compensated.
• Judge maintains that there was no valid ground to justify his inhibition and
he also claims that he doesn’t resent the filing of certiorari cases against him
as he has neither the reason nor the luxury of time to entertain such a
feeling. He is preoccupied with his case load to even think of it. He also
stresses that he has nothing personal against the pet as he does not know
the pet personally. Also he is just impleaded nominally only.
• The fact that the motion for inhibition cited no valid ground was confirmed
by the prosecuting fiscal and the counsel for the accused in the criminal
cases and the defendants in civil cases. The denial of said motion was not
whimsical nor capricious.
Pau Duman \ Leg Prof \ Dean Agabin \ I-E
• SOL GEN states that the state of hostility is purely imaginary bec there has
been no presentation of evidence to support pet conclusion.
• On his taking cognizance of the cases pending before him, it has been held
that mere pendency of a special civil action for certiorari commenced in
relation to a case pending before the lower court does not interrupt the
course of the latter when there is no writ of injunction restraining it.
• Mere filing of administrative cases against resp judge would not disqualify
him from hearing the cases for if on every occasion the party apparently
aggrieved would be allowed to either stop the proceedings in order to
await the final decision on the desired disqualification, or demand the
immediate inhibition of the judge on the basis alone of his being so charged,
many cases would have to be kept pending.
• Prejudice is not to be presumed.
• With regard to pet claim of damages under ART 32, the court held that the
purpose of the codal provision is to provide sanction to the deeply
cherished rights and freedom enshrined in the constitution. Message: No
man may seek to violate those sacred rights with impunity. Andal’s denial of
the motion for inhibition and proceeding with the trial of the cases pending
before his court were done in a regular manner and were considered his
official acts, therefore he is not liable for damages.
• The court stressed an important point which should not be overlooked and
that is the petitioner’s audacious propensity of filing certiorari and
administrative cases against the resp judge based on flimsy and unfounded
charges he can conceive.
• Bec of his act, Aparicio is Reprimanded for his conduct because he is
expected to give due respect to the courts of justice and judicial officers,
not for the sake of the incumbent office but for the maintenance of its
supreme importance.
Petition dismissed.
Gandionco vs. Peñaranda
Facts:
• Petitioner applied for injunction to annul a) the order of the resp judge
ordering the pet to pay support pendente lite to private resp his wife and
their child b) denying pet motion to suspend hearings for the action for legal
separation filed against him by priv resp.
• The private resp wife filed with the RTC of Misamis Oriental a complaint
against pet husband for legal separation on the ground of concubinage with a
petition for support and payment of damages. This is a civil case. Also the
wife filed a complaint against husband for concubinage which is a criminal
cases.
• Resp wife filed application for provisional remedy of support pendent elite
pending the decision for legal separation and the judge ordered payment of
support pendente lite.
• Pet contends that civil action for legal separation and the incidents
consequent thereto such as the support should be suspended in view of the
 Pau Duman \ Leg Prof \ Dean Agabin \ I-E
criminal case for concubinage filed against him. What he cites as a support • Divergence of opinions bet a judge hearing a case and a party’s counsel as to
for his contention is Art. 111 sec 3 of the 1985 Rules of Crim Pro which states applicable laws and jurisprudence is not a sufficient ground to disqualify the
that after a criminal action has been commenced, the pending civil action judge from hearing the case on the ground of bias and manifest partiality.
arising from the same offense shall be suspended in whatever stage it may be • Judge’s disposition is found to be sound and well-taken.
found until final judgment in crim proceeding has been rendered.
• Pet contends that legal separation cases is inextricably tied to criminal Petition dismissed.
action so that all proceedings for leg sep should be suspended to await the
conviction or acquittal of the pet.
• He cited Jerusalem vs. Hon Roberto Zurbano but this cases has relied solely
on Sec. 1 Rule 107 of the THEN prov of ROC which stated that after a
criminal action has been commenced, no civil action arising from the same
offense can be prosecuted and the same shall be suspended until final
judgment.

ISSUE:

WON the civil action for legal separation should be suspended until final judgment for
conbcubinage is rendered.

WON Judge is disqualified from hearing the case because of his disregard of applicable
laws and existing doctrines, thereby showing partiality to private resp.

HELD: Anent first issue: NO. 1985 Rules on Crim Pro should be taken into
consideration.

• But this provision, sec. 1, Rule 107 of then ROC, did not clearly state as the
1985 Rules do, that the civil action to be suspended with or upon the filing of
a criminal action is one which is to enforce civil liability arising from the
offense.
• The civil action for leg sep based on concubinage may proceed ahead of or
simultaneously with, a criminal action for concubinage bec said civil action is
NOT one to enforce the civil liability arising from the offense even if both the
civil and criminal actions arise from or are related to the same offense.
• Civil action is intended to obtain the right to live separately, with the legal
consequences thereof, such as the dissolution of the conjugal partnership of
gains, custody of offsprings, support, and disqualification from inheriting
from the innocent spouse among others.
• Decree of legal separation on ground of concubinage may be issued upon
proof of preponderance of evidence in the action for legal separation. No
criminal proceeding or conviction is necessary.
• ACT. 2710 of absolute divorce-allowed that guilt has to be established first,
however in the present CC it has not been reproduced or adopted by the
framers.
• On pendent elite, this is a remedy which the can be availed of in an action
for legal separation. If pet finds it too onerous, he can file a motion to
modify or reduce the same.

Anent second issue: No. He is not disqualified in hearing the case.