Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=81756:a-m--oca-ipi-no--09-3243-rtj&catid=1569&Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 04:42:10+00:00

Document:
JOHNWELL W. TIGGANGAY, Complainant, v. JUDGE MARCELINO K. WACAS, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 25, TABUK CITY, KALINGA, Respondent.
Judge Wacas is the Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 25 in Tabuk City, Kalinga. Complainant Johnwell W. Tiggangay (Tiggangay) was the losing protestant in an electoral protest case before the sala of Judge Wacas, docketed as Election Case No. 40, entitled Johnwell W. Tiggangay v. Rhustom L. Dagadag.
Tiggangay ran for the mayoralty position of Tanudan, Kalinga in the May 14, 2007 election but lost to Rhustom L. Dagadag (Dagadag) by a slim margin of 158 votes. Following Dagadag’s proclamation, Tiggangay filed an electoral protest which was raffled to the sala of Judge Wacas.
On August 8, 2008, Judge Wacas rendered a Decision finding Dagadag to have won the protested election but at a reduced winning margin of 97 votes. Tiggangay appealed the RTC Decision before the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) Second Division which dismissed the appeal through an Order issued on November 4, 2008. Tiggangay’s motion for reconsideration of the COMELEC Second Division’s dismissal of his appeal was likewise rejected by the COMELEC En Banc on January 12, 2011 on the ground of mootness.
During the proceedings of the protest case, complainant did not file a motion to inhibit Judge Marcelino Wacas.
No written Motion to Inhibit was filed in Court during the proceedings of the protest case.
The letter-complaint dated February 19, 2009 was filed only after the decision dated August 8, 2008 was rendered by the RTC and after the Comelec in its Order dated November 4, 2008 dismissed the appeal.
That Fidel Gayudan, one of the witnesses, is a constant companion of the complainant.
In the instant case, considering that Judge Wacas is related to his aunt by consanguinity in the third degree, it follows by virtue of the marriage of his aunt to the uncle of Dagadag that Judge Wacas is the nephew-in-law of the uncle of Dagadag, i.e., a relationship by affinity in the third degree. But Judge Wacas is not related by affinity to the blood relatives of the uncle of Dagadag as they are not his in-laws and, thus, are not related in any way to Dagadag. In like manner, Dagadag is the nephew-in-law of the aunt of Judge Wacas but is not related by affinity to the blood relatives of Judge Wacas’ aunt, like Judge Wacas. In short, there is no relationship by affinity between Judge Wacas and Dagadag as they are not in-laws of each other. Thus, Judge Wacas is not disqualified under Sec. 1 of Rule 137 to hear Election Case No. 40.
We find no reason to disturb Justice Inting’s succinct observation that the affidavit and uncorroborated testimony of Tiggangay’s driver, Gayudan, is incredulous and not worthy of credence. Gayudan supposedly followed Judge Wacas and wife to the ranch of Dagadag where the alleged victory party was celebrated on August 23, 2008 and observed for four hours the comings and goings of the people attending the party. Yet, Gayudan could not even name one attendee, aside from Judge Wacas and his wife, despite admitting that the people who allegedly attended the party are from his place.
Notably, the affidavit and testimony of Aggal belies and demolishes the affidavit and testimony of Gayudan. Aggal was the driver of Congressman Tagayo from 2007 to 2011 and was staying in the place of said Congressman which is just beside the ranch of Dagadag in Spring, Tabuk City, Kalinga. Aggal attested and testified that there was no party in the place of Dagadag on August 23, 2008. Besides, the unrebutted testimony of Palicpic places the whereabouts of Judge Wacas and his wife on August 23, 2008 not in Dagadag’s place but in the place of their relative, which is just walking distance from their residence, to attend a clan gathering.
9 Id. at 46-47, CA Order dated October 10, 2011.
10 Id. at 81-97, TSN, December 9, 2011, with the testimonies of Tiggangay and Gayudan.
11 Id. at 80, CA Order dated February 16, 2012.
12 Id. at 201-262, TSN, March 12, 2012, with the testimony of Palicpic.
13 Id. at 388-414, TSN, June 22, 2012, with the testimony of Aggal, Mrs. Wacas and Judge Wacas.
15Velasco v. Angeles, A.M. No. RTJ-05-1908, August 15, 2007, 530 SCRA 204, 224.
16Re: Letter-Complaint of Atty. Ariel Samson C. Cayetuna, et al., All Employees of Asso. Justice Michael P. Elbinias against Asso. Justice Michael P. Elbinias, CA-Mindanao Station, A.M. OCA IPI No. 08-127-CA-J, January 11, 2011, 639 SCRA 220, 234.
17 Heirs of Cipriano Reyes v. Calumpang, G.R. No. 138463, October 30, 2006, 506 SCRA 56, 72; citing Luxuria Homes, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 125986, January 28, 1999, 302 SCRA 315, 325.
18 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 civil law, 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 the parties in interest, signed by them and entered upon the record.
19 B.A. Garner, BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 67 (9th ed., 2009).
20 Intestate Estate of Manolita Gonzales Vda. de Carungcong v. People, G.R. No. 181409, February 11, 2010, 612 SCRA 272, 285.
21People v. Atop, G.R. Nos. 124303-05, February 10, 1998, 286 SCRA 157, 169.
22People v. Berana, G.R. No. 123544, July 29, 1999, 311 SCRA 664, 675-676.
23 BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY, supra note 19.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.