Aug. 1, 1996
FACTS
Respondent Justice Luis Victor previously presided in part a case for nullification of a deed of sale with pacto de retro, where he heard part of petitioner Juan Sandoval’s evidence and ruled on motions.
The decision itself, however, was penned by another judge, the Honorable Lucas Bersamin, who took over as presiding judge when then Judge Victor was promoted to the Court of Appeals as Justice.
Eventually, Sandoval did not receive a favorable decision; thus, he elevated the case to the Court of Appeals.
There in the Court of Appeals, the case was assigned to Justice Victor as ponente, who affirmed the trial court’s decision.
Hence, Sandoval petitioned for review, praying for the reversal of the Court of Appeals’ decision.
In one of his contentions, he claimed he was denied due process when the ponente of the decision in the Court of Appeals, which was Justice Victor, did not inhibit from the case inasmuch as Justice Victor was, for a certain time, the presiding judge in the trial court trying the case.
ISSUES
- Whether or not Justice Victor was legally bound to inhibit from the case.
- Whether or not there is “just or valid reason” for Justice Victor to voluntarily inhibit from the case.
RULING
1. Whether or not Justice Victor was legally bound to inhibit from the case.
NO, Justice Victor was NOT legally bound to inhibit from the case.
The principle that approximates the situation obtaining herein is the 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 court when his ruling or decision is the subject of review.” Granted that Justice Victor presided partly over the case in the court a quo, his was not the pen that finally rendered the decision therein.
2. Whether or not there is “just or valid reason” for Justice Victor to voluntarily inhibit from the case.
YES, there is “just and valid reason” for Justice Victor to voluntarily inhibit from the case.
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. 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.
DISPOSITIVE PORTION
WHEREFORE, the instant petition for review is hereby DENIED. The decision of the Court of Appeals in “Lorenzo L. Tan, Jr. v. Bienvenido Almeda,” (CA G.R. CV No. 33265) is AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
Full text of this decision.
