G.R. No. 119322 February 6, 1997
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, ET AL., petitioners, vs. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL. respondents., DAGUPAN COMBINED COMMODITIES, INC., ET AL. respondents-intervenors.

FACTS

The petitioners, through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), filed a motion to disqualify Associate Justice Santiago M. Kapunan from participating in the case. The motion alleged Justice Kapunan’s close association with Atty. Estelito Mendoza, counsel for the private respondents, citing their professional history and social interactions. This motion was filed on April 26, 1996, shortly after the Supreme Court’s First Division voted 3-2 on April 24, 1996, to dismiss the petition, which had been pending since March 1995. The OSG argued that inhibition was necessary to preserve the appearance of impartiality and the Court’s high public esteem.
Justice Kapunan formally responded, denying the grounds for inhibition. He emphasized the motion’s belated filing, coming only after an unfavorable vote, and questioned why no motion was raised during the preceding year or in other cases where he ruled for the government despite Atty. Mendoza’s involvement. He also noted that anonymous poison-pen letters attacking the Justices who voted to deny the petition had been circulated, which the Court en banc had strongly condemned in a public statement.

ISSUE

Whether the motion for the inhibition of Justice Kapunan should be granted.

RULING

The Court En Banc denied the motion to disqualify Justice Kapunan. The ruling was anchored on the fundamental principle that a motion for disqualification must be filed before the judge renders judgment on the merits. The rationale is to prevent a party from speculating on the court’s action and raising an objection only after receiving an adverse decision. Here, the OSG’s motion was filed after the Division had already deliberated and voted on the petition. This timing effectively sought to nullify a valid vote already cast, which is procedurally impermissible.
The Court found Justice Kapunan’s explanation persuasive. His long participation in the case without prior objection, his consistent voting record in other government cases involving the same private counsel, and the suspicious timing of the motion following the vote all supported the conclusion that the motion was an improper tactical maneuver rather than a genuine concern for impartiality. The Court upheld the integrity of its members and the judicial process, affirming that a judge’s mere association with counsel, absent concrete evidence of bias, is insufficient for disqualification, especially when raised after a decision has been reached internally. The denial of the motion preserved the finality and integrity of the Division’s collegial proceedings.