A.M. No. 202-MJ April 30, 1976
Sofia P. Balieza, complainant, vs. Municipal Judge Jose R. Astorga of Ajuy, Iloilo, respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Sofia P. Balieza filed an administrative complaint against respondent Judge Jose R. Astorga, alleging grave partiality, oppression, and conduct prejudicial to the service. The charges stemmed from a criminal case for frustrated homicide filed by the judge’s uncle, Roberto Astorga, against Balieza’s two sons. The complainant asserted that the judge improperly intervened in favor of his relative. The case was referred to Executive Judge Sancho Y. Inserto for investigation.
During the investigation hearing, complainant Balieza submitted a sworn Motion for Withdrawal and/or Dismissal of her complaint. She testified and affirmed the contents of this motion, stating she realized the judge had no intervention in the filing of the criminal case, that she had misunderstood his advice, and that his presence during a mayoral conference was merely coincidental. No evidence against the respondent was presented, leading the investigating judge to recommend the case be considered closed.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Judge Jose R. Astorga should be held administratively liable despite the complainant’s withdrawal and exonerating testimony, particularly in light of his failure to disqualify himself under Rule 137 of the Rules of Court.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the administrative complaint but issued a stern warning to the respondent judge. The Court emphasized that while no penalty could be imposed due to the complete absence of evidence—the complainant herself having retracted her allegations—the underlying issue of judicial impartiality remained paramount. The legal logic centers on the mandatory nature of Rule 137, Section 1, which requires a judge’s disqualification when related to a party within the sixth degree of consanguinity. Here, the complainant was the opposing party to the judge’s uncle, creating a relationship presumably within the prohibited degree.
The Court, citing Gutierrez v. Santos, reiterated that a party is entitled to “the cold neutrality of an impartial judge.” This ideal requires not only actual impartiality but also the avoidance of any appearance of bias to preserve public confidence in the judiciary. The respondent judge’s failure to inhibit himself from a case involving a close relative constituted a disregard of this clear rule, even if no actual malice was proven in this instance. The dismissal of the case was based solely on the insufficiency of evidence to support the specific charges of partiality and oppression, as the complainant effectively exonerated the respondent. However, the Court aligned with the observation of Judicial Consultant Manuel P. Barcelona that the judge’s conduct warranted admonition. Thus, the respondent was warned to exercise greater care and scrupulously adhere to disqualification rules to avoid even the slightest suspicion of partiality in the future.