G.R. No. 88105 , December 18, 1989
NICOLAS FECUNDO, petitioner, vs. HON. RAMON BERJAMEN, Presiding Judge RTC, Branch 20 and JULIUS SALCEDO, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Nicolas Fecundo, the elected mayor of Dumalag, Capiz, won over private respondent Julius Salcedo by 100 votes in the 1988 local elections. Salcedo filed an election protest, docketed as Election Case No. M-944, which was assigned to the Regional Trial Court, Branch 20, Mambusao, Capiz, presided by respondent Judge Ramon Berjamen. During the proceedings, several incidents prompted Fecundo to file a motion for the judge’s inhibition, alleging bias and partiality. Key grounds included the judge’s use of intemperate language in a February 10, 1988 order, which referred to Fecundo and his “cohorts” and stated, “Ours is a government of laws and not a government of rascals,” and his severe reprimand of Fecundo’s non-lawyer secretary in open court. Fecundo also cited the judge’s alleged personal interest and his perceived indebtedness to a congressman supporting Salcedo. The motion for inhibition was denied by Judge Berjamen, prompting Fecundo to file this petition for certiorari.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Judge Ramon Berjamen should be inhibited from hearing Election Case No. M-944 due to manifest bias and partiality, thereby violating the standard of judicial impartiality.

RULING

The Supreme Court GRANTED the petition and ordered the inhibition of Judge Berjamen. The legal logic centers on the requirement that a judge must not only be impartial but must also appear to be impartial to maintain public confidence in the judiciary. The Court found that the language used by Judge Berjamen, particularly in the February 10, 1988 order describing the petitioner and his supporters as “rascals” and implying they behaved like “savages in the jungle,” demonstrated an exasperation bordering on indignation. Such intemperate remarks, coupled with the public reprimand of a non-lawyer representative, unnecessarily clouded the appearance of fairness and neutrality. While the Court acknowledged that the procedural tactics of Fecundo’s counsel might have been frustrating, a judge’s conduct and language must remain guarded and measured. The appearance of bias is as damaging as actual bias, as it erodes trust in the judicial process. To erase any doubt and better serve the ends of justice, the Court deemed it prudent to transfer the election case to another branch. Consequently, Election Case No. M-944 was ordered transferred to Branch 21 of the same court, presided by Judge Julius L. Abella, who was directed to decide the case within three months. The temporary restraining order against Judge Berjamen was made permanent.