A.M. No. 03-6-349-RTC and A.M. No. 03-07-376-RTC, August 22, 2006
IN RE: TRANSFER OF VENUE OF ALL ILUSORIO CASES FROM THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF BAGUIO CITY TO METRO MANILA and IN RE: INHIBITION OF ALL THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT JUDGES OF BAGUIO CITY FROM HEARING CIVIL CASE NO. 5216-R AND CRIMINAL CASE NO. 20521-R

FACTS

Erlinda K. Ilusorio initially requested the Supreme Court to transfer all Ilusorio family and Baguio Country Club Corporation (BCC) cases from the RTC of Baguio City to Metro Manila. The Court denied this request on July 14, 2003, for lack of merit, finding she had not exhausted available remedies like filing motions for inhibition. Instead, the Court designated Judge Clifton Ganay of RTC, Branch 31, Agoo, La Union, to try the cases only if all judges of the Baguio City RTC had inhibited themselves. A subsequent resolution on March 8, 2004, amended the order to specifically list the eight affected civil cases.
This led to two motions: one from BCC seeking clarification on whether transfer to Judge Ganay was automatic upon any single inhibition, and another from certain Ilusorio heirs (the Bildner group) seeking to exclude one specific probate case (S.P. No. 1067-R) from the listed cases, arguing the presiding judge had not inhibited.

ISSUE

Whether the designation of Judge Clifton Ganay as a substitute judge for the listed Ilusorio and BCC cases requires the prior inhibition of all judges of the Baguio City RTC, and whether the probate case S.P. No. 1067-R should be excluded from the list.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied both motions, reiterating and clarifying its previous resolutions. The legal logic is anchored on the principle that the designation of an external judge is an extraordinary remedy of last resort, not a routine administrative transfer. The Court emphasized that the phrase “where all the judges of the Regional Trial Court, Baguio have issued orders of inhibition” in its March 8, 2004 resolution is a strict condition precedent.
Therefore, a case is transferred to Judge Ganay only if every single judge in the Baguio City RTC has recused themselves. If one or more judges are available and have not inhibited, the case must follow the standard procedure under the Revised Manual for Clerks of Court: it should be re-raffled among the remaining judges of that court. The listing of specific case numbers, including S.P. No. 1067-R, was merely for identification to avoid confusion and did not imply automatic or immediate transfer. Consequently, there was no basis to exclude the probate case from the list, as its transfer remains contingent upon the future, collective inhibition of all Baguio judges. The Court’s designations are interpreted restrictively to preserve normal judicial assignment processes unless absolutely necessary.