Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=53027:gr-179583-2009&catid=1522&Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 11:55:53+00:00

Document:
JIMMY BARNES a.k.a. JAMES L. BARNES, Petitioner, v. TERESITA C. REYES, ELIZABETH PASION, MA. ELSA C. GARCIA, IMELDA C. TRILLO, MA. ELENA C. DINGLASAN, and RICARDO P. CRISOSTOMO, Respondents.
Assailed in this Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court are the June 28, 2007 Decision1 and the September 18, 2007 Resolution2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 94016. The relevant antecedent facts and proceedings follow.
RTC, Branch 215, of Quezon City, thus, proceeded to hear Civil Case No. Q-99-37219. On February 23, 2006, however, petitioner filed his motion for the inhibition5 of the presiding judge, Ma. Luisa C. Quijano-Padilla, allegedly to preclude doubts or apprehensions of partiality and to give the parties breathing space and peace of mind in the course of the adjudication of the proceedings.
After respondents filed their opposition, the RTC judge issued the March 7, 2006 Order6 declaring that she was voluntarily inhibiting herself from hearing the case and that she was granting the motion in order to dispel any doubt and perception of bias, and so that the faith and confidence in the justice system would not be eroded.
Disagreeing with the trial judge, respondents, on April 10, 2006, filed before the CA their Petition for Mandamus with Prayer for the Issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order and a Writ of Preliminary Injunction.7 Respondents contended in the main that there was no sufficient ground for the trial judge to inhibit herself from hearing the case.
On June 28, 2007, the CA rendered the assailed Decision8 granting the petition for mandamus, reversing and setting aside the inhibitory order issued by the trial court, and directing the said court to hear and decide the civil case with deliberate dispatch. It ruled, among others, that the allegations of preconceived bias and partiality thrown against the trial judge were more imaginary than real; that the records bore no suspicious circumstances that would create doubt on the impartiality, fairness and objectivity of the trial judge; that no extrinsic evidence appeared on the records to establish that the trial judge acted with bad faith, malice or corrupt purpose all throughout the proceedings; and that there was no just and valid cause for the disqualification of the trial judge from presiding over the case.
The appellate court, in the further assailed September 18, 2007 Resolution,9 denied petitioner's motion for reconsideration. Aggrieved, petitioner brought the matter to this Court via the instant Rule 45 petition.
Section 1. Disqualification of judges. No judge or judicial officers 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.
The first paragraph of the section relates to the mandatory inhibition of judges; the second, to their voluntary inhibition.
In the case at bar, petitioner, aside from his bare allegations, has not shown that Judge Quijano-Padilla had been biased and partial against a particular party in the proceedings in Civil Case No. Q-99-37219. The judge even acknowledged in the inhibitory order that the motion for her disqualification contained no statement of specific act or acts that would show her partiality or bias in the treatment of the case. Her voluntary inhibition was only on account of dispelling any doubt and perception of bias on the part of petitioner. Clearly, therefore, no just and valid reason supports the inhibition of Judge Quijano-Padilla.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is DENIED. The June 28, 2007 Decision and the September 18, 2007 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 94016 are AFFIRMED.
1 Penned by Associate Justice Japar B. Dimaampao, with Associate Justices Mario L. GuariÃ±a III and Sixto C. Marella, Jr., concurring; rollo, pp. 150-158.
10 Gochan v. Gochan, 446 Phil. 433, 447 (2003).
11 No. L-27934, September 18, 1967, 21 SCRA 160.
13 G.R. No. 171137, June 5, 2009.
14 Id. see, however, Gutang v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 124760, July 8, 1998, 292 SCRA 76, in which the Court considered as a just and valid reason for voluntary inhibition the distrust and skepticism that may possibly cloud the decision, order or resolution the judge will render.
15 Pagoda Philippines, Inc. v. Universal Canning, Inc., G.R. No. 160966, October 11, 2005, 472 SCRA 355, 362.
16 Dumo v. Espinas, G.R. No. 141962, January 25, 2006, 480 SCRA 53, 68.
17 G.R. No. 127262, July 24, 1997, 276 SCRA 243, 255-256.
18 Pagoda Philippines, Inc. v. Universal Canning, Inc., supra note 15, at 362-363.

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