G.R. No. 157315 ; December 1, 2010
CITY GOVERNMENT OF BUTUAN and CITY MAYOR LEONIDES THERESA B. PLAZA, Petitioners, vs. CONSOLIDATED BROADCASTING SYSTEM (CBS), INC., and HON. ROSARITO F. DABALOS, PRESIDING JUDGE, RTC, BRANCH 2, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners City Government of Butuan and City Mayor Leonides Theresa B. Plaza sought to deny the business permit of respondent Consolidated Broadcasting System, Inc. (CBS), operating as Bombo Radyo Butuan, and to close its station. The Mayor cited violations of the city zoning ordinance, as the station operated in a residential area under an expired Temporary Use Permit, and numerous public complaints against the station’s broadcasts. The Sangguniang Panlungsod adopted a resolution supporting the Mayor’s decision. CBS then filed a complaint for prohibition and mandamus with a prayer for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction in the Regional Trial Court (RTC). The case was initially raffled to Branch 2, presided by Judge Rosarito F. Dabalos, who voluntarily inhibited himself, citing the station’s past critical commentaries against him and his court, which he believed could affect his impartiality. The case was reassigned to Branch 5.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether Judge Dabalos committed grave abuse of discretion in voluntarily inhibiting himself from the case and, subsequently, in granting CBS’s application for a writ of preliminary injunction after he reassumed jurisdiction over the case.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled in the negative, finding no grave abuse of discretion. On the issue of inhibition, the Court held that a judge’s voluntary inhibition is a matter of conscience and sound discretion based on subjective moral certainty. Judge Dabalos’s stated reasons—personal experiences with the station’s critical and disrespectful broadcasts—were sufficient to convince him of potential bias, a decision afforded great respect. His subsequent reassumption of the case, after the parties filed a joint motion urging him to reconsider his inhibition, was permissible as the motion effectively withdrew the grounds for his initial inhibition, restoring his moral certainty of impartiality.
Regarding the grant of the preliminary injunction, the Court found it proper. A preliminary injunction is a preservative remedy to prevent threatened or continuous irremediable injury. CBS demonstrated a clear legal right to operate, as the closure was based on an expired permit and zoning issues, which were not outright violations but administrative matters requiring due process. The threatened closure would cause irreparable injury through loss of revenue and public service. The balance of convenience favored CBS, as maintaining the status quo (continued operation) pending final adjudication would prevent grave injustice without detriment to public interest, as the city could still pursue its case on the merits. The petitioners failed to prove that the judge’s actions were patently arbitrary or capricious.